1
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me the possibility
to complete this book. A special gratitude I give to Paul Hollywood whose contribution in
stimulating suggestions and support helped me to coordinate this book. Furthermore I would
also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial support of PETA, who with their
contribution, made this book possible by providing unlimited information on the subject. I
would also like to express gratitude for the all the books and references that were used
throughout, each was informative and helpful and developed my research beyond belief.
Finally I would like to express gratitude for the unwavering support of Adrian Kelly who has
always supported my research and helped when I had difficulties.
3
Table of Contents
List of Figures:
5
Part One: Animals in Motion Pictures and the AHA
6
Chapter 1: A History of Horrors-The First Animal Actors
7
The False Animal
11
Case Study: Jesse James
13
Chapter 2: The Beginning of Animal Rights
16
Religion Influences Animal Rights
18
Animal Rights Vs Animal Welfare
20
Chapter 3: No! Animals were Harmed in the Making of this Movie
22
‘No Animals were Harmed, The truth behind the Words’
25
Case Study: ‘The Adventures of Milo and Otis’
29
Case Study: ‘Cannibal Holocaust’
32
Chapter 4: Monkey Business in the Film Industry
35
The Fate of Famous Apes
36
Case Study: ‘The Rise of the Planet of the Apes’
38
Chapter 5: Trained to Entertain
Case Study: ‘Water for Elephants’
Chapter 6: When does the use of Animals Became the abuse of Animals
41
43
46
4
Case study: ‘The Hobbit’
50
Part Two: Animals in Filmed Media
54
Chapter 1: Documentaries on Animal Behaviour
55
Case Study: Disney’s ‘White Wildnerness
Chapter 2: Animal Rights Documentaries
Case Study: The Cove
Chapter 3: Animals in Pornography-The Crushing Truth
A Criminal Connotation
57
62
65
70
73
Chapter 4: The Crushers
75
Chapter 5: A Callous Conclusion
79
References/Bibliography
84
Appendix:
Letter 1
90
Letter 2
95
Report 1
97
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Topsy Electrocuted
8
Figure 2: Jesse James
14
Figure 3: Lynx Advertisement
16
Figure 4: Email From AHA Representative
27
Figure 5: Email from AHA Representative
27
Figure 6: Otis in a Box
29
Figure 7: Milo clings for life
30
Figure 8: Milo fights a Bear
30
Figure 9: Otis Falls
30
Figure 10: Butchered Turtle
31
Figure 11: Chubbs
33
Figure 12: The Hobbit Horse
51
Figure 13: Mermaids hand
59
Figure 14: The Red Cove
64
Figure 15: Crush films
69
Figure 16: Crush kitten killer
76
6
Part One
Animals in Motion Pictures and the AHA
“Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity”
Immanuel Kant
7
Chapter 1
A History of Horrors: The First Animal Actors
Animals have always been used for the benefit of the human being, starting with
being used to feed humans and clothe them which has been done for thousands of years.
They were then used to make work easier for human beings, travel was made shorter on
horseback and work on fields was eased for humans as they utilized animals in farming. The
use of animal meat and clothing was a necessity for the human race’s survival and
development and the use of animals for travel and farm work also had its advantages. They
are now utilized in experimental drugs testing (cosmetics/pharmaceutical) which, although it
has been the subject of political and ethical debates within human society, is still broadly
approved within our culture as it arguably benefits the human being. However, they have
also been immersed in entertainment, from the Ancient Roman circus amphitheatres and
chariot racing to modern day bull fights and hunting. Violence and abuse towards the
animals in these ‘sports’ was and is not uncommon, and with such a brutal aspect to the
games, death has been inevitable. What this depicts is the progressive utilization of animals,
where once we used them for our survival, now we use them for our pleasure. With the
arrival of motion pictures in the late 1800’s it was not long before animals were introduced to
the big screen. But how are audiences to understand the apparently endless menagerie of
animals in the wild (White Wilderness, 1958), heroic animal companions (Lassie, 1994) and
cartoon creatures (Felix the Cat, 1989) that have permeated film since its inception? Animal
actors have been a constant, yet little considered presence, but what does this mean for
8
animals and their rights? The finding of this book suggests that the first years of cinema
portray the often unsympathetic behaviour towards animal actors as without animal abuse
laws in place filmmakers were free to do whatever they deemed necessary, and this resulted
in the deaths of many animals for the purpose of action scenes and experimentation. The
training of animals to perform tricks or stunts was rarely used in early films, animals were
forced to perform, and more often than not, were killed in the process. Animals that were
trained to perform were usually trained in extreme conditions, using negative reinforcement
and punishment to exercise control.
animals used in film.
With no laws came no responsibility towards the
The first film to blatantly portray animal cruelty began as an
experiment and turned into one of the most explicit animal deaths caught on camera in the
early 1900’s. This was Thomas Edison’s short film portraying the electrocution of a small
elephant.
Edison produced the short scientific film in 1903 trying to disprove the safety of alternating
currents, as he had previously established that direct currents were the standard for electricity
distribution and was living off the royalties of his
discovery.
He aptly named it ‘Electrocuting an
Elephant’ (Edison, 1903). The purpose of the film
was to show the harmful nature of alternating
currents. George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla,
Figure1: A shot from ‘Electrocuting an Elephant’
(1903), showing the smoke rising from her feet before
she falls dead to the ground.
other inventers of the time, invented the new
currents that would revolutionise the distribution of
electricity and Edison’s aggressive campaign to disprove the alternating current took a
macabre form, as he publically electrocuted a small number of animals, such as stray dogs,
9
cats, cattle and horses, with alternating currents. He finally brought an Elephant, named
Topsy by her park handlers, to be electrocuted, fed her poisonous carrots (in case she didn’t
die from electrocution 1 ) attached metal plates to her feet and sent hundreds of volts of
electricity through her body until she fell, dead, to the ground (Figure 1). Topsy was a baby
circus elephant that got into trouble for squashing three handlers at the Coney Island Circus,
one of whom were reportedly feeding her lit cigarettes. Because of her behaviour the
handlers decided she was a danger and condemned her to death. Edison’s work caused
uproar at the time as people saw the small giant chained and murdered.
While the
fascination surrounding the short film concerns the pain the animal endured, the purpose was
to portray the harmful aspect of alternating currents, by killing an animal that has no use for
either electricity or anything that comes with it, as it is a human necessity. Yet Topsy was
forcibly electrocuted to prove the dangerous nature of electricity. By killing the smaller
animals with the currents, Edison had already proved that they were dangerous, yet
determined to prove how dangerous they were, he continued to kill Topsy to completely
discredit the new form of electricity distribution. Ironically, it is alternating currents that
have been providing electricity to homes all over the world for nearly a hundred years, not
direct currents. What Thomas Edison is portraying in his short film is the attitudes humans
have obtained towards animals and the lengths to which people will go in the hope of
financial gain. Topsy was killed to prove a point, however it was a different point she proved.
Animals have been treated as commodities in the film industry, since there has been no
attempt to protect animals used in film, Topsy was not given any sort of numbing agent, or
anaesthetic before the electrocution. No precautions were taken to ease her pain. It is easy to
use animals for experimentation because they cannot complain in a way that is understood by
the human race. The filmed murder of Topsy portrays the typical attitudes filmmakers
1
Information found at http://footnotables.blogspot.ie/2010/01/tangled-tale-of-topsy-elephant.html
10
generally have towards the animal kingdom, and would continue to have for decades to come.
Edison purposefully chose Topsy for his experiment as the park officials at ‘Luna Park Zoo’
in Coney Island decided that the female elephant was becoming too aggressive and decided it
would be easier to slaughter her. According to reports the park officials had previously
thought of hanging the giant but could not proceed due to humanitarians and animal activists
complaining (America, 2013). Edison had no reason to the release the film, since his point
(that alternating currents were dangerous) had been proved, (although most people don’t strap
metal plates to their feet and body when interacting with electrical equipment), yet he did
release it with the year in a campaign against the alternating current. The scene has been reused in many other media such as games for the XBOX (Assassins Creed 2), and films like
‘Little Fugitive’ (Lipper, 2006).
Other films have also been released documenting real life events that were equally as
appalling towards animals.
One such film representing this animal cruelty was released in 1900. It was a documentary
film recording a traditional bull fight. ‘Spanish Bullfight’ (Unknown, 1900) was filmed in a
crowded arena, by an unknown director and portrayed a bull charging at a picador on a horse.
Bull fights are a common activity/game in Spain and represent part of their culture. While
the film accurately portrayed the ruthless behaviour towards the terrorized animal, it received
much attention for its callous nature and unsympathetic look at how the bull was treated as
one man can be seen throwing stones at the bull in order to make it charge. Yet it, alongside
Edison’s short film received much attention showing that there is a need to observe cruel
treatment towards animals. Author Dr. Ja Robertson states in ‘The Hidden Cinema: British
11
Film Censorship in Action 1913-1975’ (Robertson, 1993) about ‘Spanish Bullfight’ filmed by
an unknown Frenchman:
When the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) were established in the
beginning of 1913 there had been no set rules for animal treatment. A ‘Spanish
Bullfight’ was nevertheless rejected on 14th March. This was one of 22 films
rejected that year and in the first BBFC annual report ‘Cruelty to Animals’ was
high on the list for cuts or outright rejections of the 22 films, although Spanish
Bullfight was not expressly mentioned.
It is interesting that although we can see that animal cruelty in film was observed and
acknowledged in 1913, laws concerning the welfare of animals used in the film industry
have yet to be put in place, exactly one hundred years later. The need for people to
witness the spectacle of animal torture has had an impact on the regulations concerning
animal treatment. It appears that cinema has reproduced the historical and present
attitudes towards animals, by not treating them with any sort of respect in film. It has, if
anything, created a new medium for seeing the spectacle of animal torture that society
has found so fascinating throughout history. But why is it taking so long to create
systems capable of protecting animal actors? Animal cruelty was first noticed in film in
1913, and now exactly one hundred years later, still no laws have been put in place to
protect animal actors.
What ‘Spanish Bullfight’ depicted were the existing attitudes
towards watching the spectacle of animal exploitation and how that attitude has not
changed in the last century.
The False Animal
The many films over the first few decades of film that employed the use of animal actors,
(Toto in ‘The Wizard of Oz’ 1939, Trigger in ‘My Pal Trigger’ 1946 and Cheetah in the
‘Tarzan’ series, early 30’s) were under no obligation to treat the animals with respect or
12
compassion. John Berger proposes in his essay ‘Why look At Animals?’ (Berger, 2000) that
animal imagery in modernity is a substitute for a lost, direct relationship with animals.
Animals in film were widely received with awe and joy, watching Chimpanzees walk and
dress like human beings and engaging in human activities on screen was nothing short of
amazing. Children and adults alike became accustomed to seeing animal actors and it was a
welcomed display, with the notions of abuse far from the minds of audiences. Berger states
that audiences, and human beings in general, have lost touch with the real animal, instead we
are bombarded with images of the false animal (Berger, 2000). The false animal we see in
film is not a genuine representation of how they live. In films they are human companions,
funny creatures that have audiences laughing with enjoyment or heroic friends willing to die
for their masters. This is a false representation of the animal kingdom, as in reality they are
treated with disdain, disrespect and trained in horrible conditions to perform the comic and
remarkable acts we see on screen and find so amusing. In this way, film has altered our
understanding of the animal, making us perceive what we see in motion pictures as almost
accurate representations of animal behaviour. Burt states that animals are “A rupture in the
field of representation” (Burt, 2002) commenting that audiences are unable to accept that
animal images are merely fictional. Mockery of animals is also a familiar aspect of modern
society, including film, as is decontextulization: transferring animals from their natural
habitat, context and existences, and reconfiguring them as participants in a purely
anthropocentric description: from ‘King Kong’ (Guillermin, 1976) to ‘101 Dalmatians’
(Herek, 1996) and the ‘Beethoven’ (Levant, 1992) films to ‘Doctor Doolittle’(Thomas, 1998).
The film industry and habitually Hollywood films operate in the spectacle of animals, rather
than the real, causing the establishment of fantasy perceptions of animals. When bombarded
with the mockery of animals on the big screen, one soon expects to see it in reality. Burt
suggests that the mockery and decontextualization of animals in film serves as a disguise
13
because the authentic animal would be too boring, or disheartening for the viewer to endure
(Burt, 2002). Therefore, in order to entertain the masses, spectacle became imperative to a
film’s success and with that, manipulation and exploitation towards animal actors. With film
portraying animals in so many negative ways and audiences lapping up the spectacle, one
must question whether it is in our nature to take pleasure in viewing such horrific acts
towards members of the animal kingdom, and whether it effects how we view animals
outside of film. There is a definite fascination with seeing this form of animal on screen; the
best friend to man, the comic fool and the adventurous side-kick. It could be due to both
spectacle and fascination in films containing animal actors that have suppressed the creation
of laws protecting animals used in film. However, what needs to be understood is not the
motivation for animal imagery in film but the affects it has on animal rights, how we perceive
them and think about them.
Case Study: Jesse James (1939)
Up until the release of Jesse James (King, 1939), there were no set rules for the
treatment of animals involved in filming, and because of this many directors were under no
obligation to house, transport or treat the animals appropriately. Up until this point in film
history, animals had been abused and killed, however, the extent of it was and still is not well
known. ‘Jesse James’ (King, 1939) told the story of the infamous American outlaw, and
being a western, one would expect nothing less than horses, guns and action. What audiences
witnessed were indescribably realistic action scenes that gained the film much attention.
14
Allegations began concerning the realism of some of the action scenes that employed animals
and as a result, an investigation took place. The realism that the movie was applauded for
was in fact reality. The action scene portraying a cowboy and his horse falling from a 75 foot
cliff was in truth a horse falling to its death (Figure 2). Blinders were attached to the
creature’s eyes in order to trick it into jumping off the cliff. Unfortunately, the horse did not
die on impact, but instead broke his back and had to be put down later (FifthEstate, 1982).
Alongside this disturbing allegation of abuse, it was reported that eight other horses were
killed by tripwire in other scenes.
While there was no actual evidence (documentation,
witness reports) proving the abuse, the scenes that made it into the final cut portray the
exploitation of the horses. The technique of using tripwire to stumble the horses to look like
they had been shot was not uncommon in films of this genre in the early decades of the
1900’s. Training animals to fall on cue is possible and is being used in film presently, but
with no set guidelines for the filmmakers using animal actors in 1939 the easiest option was
to force them to fall. Not only would it save money, but it would require only a few takes,
saving time as well. It also illustrates the lack of rights for animal actors at the time. No
precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the
horses as they were perceived as disposable
commodities in the filming process. Without rights
they are nothing more than possessions, displaying
the negative opinion of animals. Little did the public
know at the time, they were witnessing the deaths
Figure 2: A shot from ‘Jesse James’ (1943)
portraying the actual death of a horse falling
from a cliff.
of numerous horses.
For the first time in film
history audiences really began to question the use of animals in the film industry and it was
due to the horrific action scenes in this particular film that the American Humane Association
15
(AHA) became involved in creating guidelines for the use of animals in film, and was given
permission to monitor animal welfare on film sets.
16
Chapter 2
The Beginning of Animal Rights.
Animals have been used for centuries to feed, clothe and develop the human race, but
in the last few decades, the public have become increasingly aware of the existence of a new
cause: Animal rights and liberation from abuse and torture. One needs to begin with a bit of
history to put into perspective the animal rights movement and how our consciousness of
animal rights has shifted throughout history. Although it is described as a ‘movement’, it was
not a clear cut political organization, but rather many people who had concern for both the
welfare and rights tried to develop ways of changing the treatment of animals. Concern for
animal welfare can be found throughout history, the Buddhist and Hindu idea of compassion
has always been universal, extending to the animal kingdom along with the human species.
Judaism is as much a code of practice for living as a religion and frequently brings animals
into the moral arena, for example, working animals, like people, must rest on the Sabbath.
Similar beliefs cannot be found in most western thought or religion however. With regard to
Christianity, Thomas Aquinas stated that the only possible objection to animal cruelty was
that it could lead to cruelty towards humans, that animals and plants alike were for the use of
people (Panaman, 2008). This became the official view of the Roman Catholic Church,
although passages in the bible portray evidence of caring attitudes towards animals: “He that
killeth an ox is as if he slew a man” (Isaiah 66.3) and “A righteous man regardeth the life of
the beast” (Proverbs 12.10). In general however, established Christianity is not sympathetic
to animals, and some Christians think that animals were put on the earth for human use due to
a passage in Genesis that states humans have “dominion” over animals. In addition to this
attitude Pope Pius IX refused permission for the founding of a society for the prevention of
17
cruelty towards animals in 18602, on the grounds that it would imply human beings had a
duty towards lesser creatures (Humphrys, 1995).
In 1800 Britain, animal rights were being recognised by citizens. The first efforts to obtain
legal protection for members of the animal kingdom were underway by the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with the introduction of a bill, introduced in April 1800,
against Bull-Baiting, but to no avail3. The Bill was defeated and took another twenty years
for it to be passed. What this suggests is that animal rights had a beginning in the early
nineteenth century but was vigorously condemned as something of lesser importance. Not
many people were interested in the safety of animals when they had their own socio-political
issues to deal with.
Campaigns were started in the early 1970’s protesting many animal
rights issues, like the anti-sealing campaign
(Lynx,1980’s) the anti-fur campaign (PETA,
1980’s) and the anti-leather campaign (PETA,
1980’s) showing a new way of understanding
animal products. The abuse needed to acquire
Figure 3: David Bailey produced this
advertisement in 1986 to support the Antifur movement.
leather and fur from animals was brought into the
public eye by many organisations such as ‘The
Animal Rights movement’ (1970), ‘Animal Liberation Front’ (1976), ‘Lynx’ (1985) and
‘PETA’ (1980) who produced highly publicized advertising to raise awareness (Figure 3).
2
3
Information found at http: http://www.animalsandethics.org/chronology.html
Information found at: www.leics.gov.uk/fox_infosheet_movement_to_ban_hunting.doc
18
Religion Influencing Animal Rights
In ‘Animal Rights and Wrongs’ (Scruton, 2000) Scruton suggests that it is due to the decline
in religious belief that the questions of animals and their welfare “have risen so
predominantly to consciousness in recent times” (Scruton, 2000). He goes on to say:
Towards insects we have little sympathy; reptiles and fish delight us but inspire no
affection; mammals in general (or at least the larger mammals) prompt our warm
concern...Our nearest neighbours, the higher primates, are so like us in appearance
and so able and willing to ape our interests that we find it difficult at times not to look
at them as...human children (Scruton, 2000).
This idea of perceiving the animals the same as perceiving children is a common concept,
even in film. Animals are anthropomorphised constantly in film, as a way of making them
understandable. It is similar to Berger’s idea of the false animal, seeing them as something
they are not.
Scruton continues in his evaluation of our treatment towards the animal
kingdom:
We cannot kill a sick old man to feed a swarm of hungry rats, great as the net balance
of pain over pleasure might be. But we can kill a healthy bullock to feed a sick old
man. (Scruton, 2000)
What Scruton is implying is our lack of justice and our moral solipsism, where only the self
(human) is important, not the other (non-human). While we show compassion to members of
the animal kingdom we appreciate for aesthetic purposes, human beings are still the most
important and everything else comes second only to our well-being. This can also link to the
animal cruelty formula used in animal experimentation, the ethical arithmetic developed for
the use of animals in drug testing, experimentation, cosmetic testing etc. Where the results of
testing on animals would greatly affect the human race, and the suffering of the animal is
19
low, then experimentation is ethical. Therefore, even with suffering, no matter how great or
small, it is deemed essential compared to the benefit for human beings. The arithmetic also
relies heavily on the value of both a human life and a non-human life, which is difficult for
many reasons, the most important one being that the value of a human life is always deemed
more than that of an animal 4 , which has been the cause of much mistreatment towards
animals. Both aspects Scruton examines, the anthropomorphism of animals and the valuation
of human lives over that of non-humans, has impacted the perception of animals.
Randy Malamud, professor at Georgia State University and author of ‘A cultural History of
Animals in the Modern Age’ (Malamud, 2011) states that we as a race:
Regularly imprison and torture animals in factory farms and research laboratories.
We displace them as our cities and suburbs expand. We poison them as we dump
toxins into their food-ways, we commodify them in the pet industry. But even when
we take a break from such active physical assaults, we are prone to engage with
animals in ways that hurt their spirits and impinge upon their welfare. (Malamud,
2011)
This connects to using animals in film. Although most animals are not purposefully harmed
for filming, this book will examine whether or not an animal’s welfare is damaged in the
filming process. What Malamud’s statement portrays is the damaging effect human beings
have had on the welfare of animals. Or at least that was the case before the 1970’s, as since
then animal rights has become quite prominent in society with various campaigns publicizing
animal cruelty and this could be due to the decline in religious beliefs, according to Scruton.
He states that people had no difficulty in rationalizing the difference between themselves and
other animals when they were confident of their status as the highest order of creation, or
“made in God’s image” (Scruton, 2000) especially with the Christian bible telling people they
4
Information found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml#h4
20
had a right to feel more authoritative over animal. Religions influence over people’s thoughts
and feelings is dwindling though and society is now capable of questioning and criticizing
their actions towards ‘lesser’ species. Scruton believes that due to the decline in religious
beliefs animal rights has been given more thought and caused a new way of thinking towards
non-humans. The ideology of animal rights have evolved continuously over decades, but
many animal activists point to the publication of “Animal Liberation” (Singer, 1985) in 1985
as the catalyst for the modern American animal rights movement. In it Singer describes the
history of animal rights in religion, culture and society.
Animal Rights v Animal Welfare
With the rise of awareness towards animal rights, two forms of the movement came about;
animal welfare versus animal rights. The difference of the two forms of the animal rights
movement regards the use of animals against the treatment of animals. Animal welfare
argues for stronger laws preventing cruelty and requiring humane treatment. So animals used
in farming should be treated compassionately while they are killed for their meat. Animals
used in research and experimentation should have access to veterinary care while cosmetics
that could cause many infections are tested on them (an example can be found with testing
shampoo and other cosmetic products on rabbits because they have no tear ducts to examine
the toxicity of the product). By contrast, animal rights advocates oppose any and all human
use of animals. These include the use of animals in entertainment from circuses to zoos,
animals used in farming, hunting and experimentation (Cass, 2004).
21
PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) is a non-profit organisation that was
formed in 1980 to help prevent the mistreatment of animals.
PETA falls under the animal
rights side while the AHA (American Humane Association of America) falls under the
animal welfare side. While the AHA began as an organisation set up to help children,
founded in 1877, in 1940 it began taking animals into consideration and created a section
dedicated to helping animal welfare. In film, the awareness of the treatment of animals, as
stated above, came about after the release of ‘Jesse James’ (King, 1939). The American
Humane Association of America began taking steps to ensure the welfare of animals used in
film. They do not take the Animal rights stance that believes animals should not be used in
film, rather they take precautions to ensure that no animals come to harm while on a film or
Television set.
22
Chapter 3
No! Animals Were Harmed in the Making of this Film
With this new awareness surrounding animals used in the film industry only one group
came about with the authority to monitor film sets; The American Humane Association
(AHA). In 1940, only a year after ‘Jesse James’ (King, 1939) was released, the Association
of Motion Pictures Producers agreed to give the AHA open access to the sets of movies using
animals. While other organisations like PETA recognised a problem in the film industry,
they did not have the resources to spread their monitoring to the animals in film. Since then
films all over the world have been monitored by AHA representatives.
They issued
guidelines that filmmakers using animal actors could follow to ensure the safety of their
actors. In the guidelines they state:

No animal will be killed or injured for the sake of film production.

The American Humane Association will not allow any animal to be treated
inhumanely to elicit performance.

General anaesthesia and sedation are high risk procedures and are prohibited for the
sole purpose of filmmaking.
They also suggest that filmmakers should advise the film crew to contact the AHA when
animals are being used to allow them to monitor the film set. With the guidelines set in place
and the accessibility to the AHA becoming easier, audiences were ensured for the first time in
film history that the animals they were seeing on screen were protected at all times. It
provoked the question of animal safety for the first time in viewers and appeared to bring film
into an era of unity for human and animal actors alike. They created the now well known
23
slogan ‘No Animals were Harmed in the Making of this Film’ certificate to award films that
adhered to the AHA Guidelines and ensured the safety of their animal actors. However, the
use of the words "should", "encouraged to", and "recommended" are perpetuated so many
times that the guidelines read more like a list of behaviours that are frowned upon than a set
of strict rules to be taken seriously, “American Humane recommends that certain rodeo
events be simulated to ensure the safety of the animals”5. What this also subtly suggests is
that not adhering to the ‘guidelines’ will not bring about any penalties towards the film crew,
there is no chapter in the guidelines providing information on the consequences of not
following them. With no penalties for maltreating animals actors, the ‘guidelines’ and the
AHA themselves have no real authority over the management of animal actors.
Even with the work of the AHA, there are still films that have been released with shocking
allegations of abuse. These include ‘Heaven’s Gate’ (1980), that reportedly killed chickens,
bled horses to use as fake blood and used explosives on horses in battle scenes, ‘Pink
Flamingos’ (1972) used a live chicken in a sex scene which was killed in the process,
‘Cannibal Holocaust’ (1980) killed numerous animals during filming such as a muskrat, a
large turtle, a snake, a pig and a monkey and ‘Babel’ (2006) twisted the head of a chicken
(FifthEstate, 2013). This is a short list of the most recognisable films that have had animal
cruelty portrayed, even with the help of the AHA. Who exactly is to blame? There can be
hundreds of people on film sets from producers, costume designers, directors and animal
wranglers to the actors and extra’s. However, if the AHA were doing their job, should these
incidents of outrageous animal abuse not have happened? More importantly, why does it
continue to happen?
5
Guidelines found at: http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/animals/pa-film-guidelines.pdf
24
Another question to ask, and quite possibly the more important question to ask, is why
filmmakers want to portray the actual deaths of animals on screen? One could argue it is for
the purpose of realism, so that the film has a sense of real life about it and not fakery. We
have all seen films that use animal doubles to complete a stunt or scene. ‘Anchorman: The
legend of Ron Burgandy’ (McKay, 2004) tells the story of an anchorman coming to grips
with having a female co-anchor. The film used a small Border Terrier for the character of
Baxtor, Ron Burgandy’s dog. In an infamous scene with Jack Black, Baxtor is kicked off a
bridge. For the scene, a toy dog was used and there was no post-production trickery used to
create the illusion that it was the living dog being thrown off. Instead they proudly showed
the toy dog being kicked off the bridge which caused the usual response ‘that was so fake’ to
films that show shoddy editing. However, what ‘Anchorman’ (McKay, 2004) portrays are
the developing attitudes to animals. Of course Jack Black wasn’t going to drop kick a small
dog off a bridge, but many films have done much worse and been applauded for it by
audiences. By using the toy dog, the film could ensure audiences that the little terrier
portraying Baxtor was in no way harmed during the filming, however distracting the scene
was, taking audiences out of the reality of the film. Most filmmakers would not want this
separation from the film reality to actual reality and as an alternative, use live animals. No
real documentation was made about the use of a fake dog for the scene, but then, why would
there be? It is common sense not to kick a dog off a bridge and this appears to be the attitude
of the filmmakers.
Another point to argue is the cost and time that would be saved. Filmmakers that kill animals
on screen for the sake of a film are cutting costs by not having to make fake animals to
25
pretend to kill. It would only require one or two takes of killing a real animal, while with a
fake you would need to find the most realistic way of portraying the death. Killing the actual
animal on screen would solve all of these problems in filmmaking.
‘No Animals were Harmed’-The Truth Behind the Words
After the copyright of the phrase ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ audiences felt at ease as
they watched films with animal actors with the knowledge that there was supervision. The
purpose of the disclaimer is to reassure audiences that despite the impression of violence, no
harm was imposed on any animal in the world outside of the film (Mizuta, 2002). The
disclaimer, according to the AHA, speaks for the animals that cannot speak for themselves or
defend their rights, yet it also protects distributors from legal claims that could tarnish the
reputation of their company and the film, which implies helping the film company if animal
abuse allegations do arise.
Both are contradicting descriptions of the disclaimer, one
protecting the animals, the other protecting the film company. It also illuminates the anxiety
that the apparent injury of the animal provokes, causing audiences to question previous films
that used animal actors and current ones being released with the ‘No Animals were Harmed’
certificate, by acknowledging the frequency of violent representations in film (Mizuta, 2002).
While the disclaimer ‘guarantees’ the protection of animals in both film and television, safety
issues are continuing in the film industry when it comes to the use of animal actors. There
have been thousands of films monitored worldwide and given various ratings from
‘Outstanding’ to ‘Unacceptable’. In ‘Animal Movies Guide’ (Wilson, 2007) Staci Layne
Wilson says
26
In 2003, the film and television unit [of the AHA] monitored more than 800
productions at home and abroad and awarded over 150 ‘No Animals were Harmed
disclaimers (Wilson, 2007).
Out of the 800 productions, only a little over 150 were given the disclaimer, raising the
question of why exactly the remaining 650 films were not awarded. Although the AHA have
monitored the films, they were unable to award all films the certificate, however, it is
imperative to question whether or not their presence has affected animal actors. The AHA
monitor films by firstly looking over the script and deciding if all scenes are safe for the
animals. If they feel a scene is unsafe they will speak to the production about changing the
scene. However, nearly 650 films obviously put animals in unsafe positions, so what exactly
did the AHA do on the sets? With these numbers, it appears they haven’t been doing as well
as they say have.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are an organisations set up to protect the
rights of animals, their campaigns have included ending the use of fur and leather, stopping
the sport of hunting and many other areas of the animal rights issues. Having been in contact
with a PETA representative in regard to the use of animals in film, I acquired a list of films
that have been given good ratings by the AHA while still harming animals in the filming (see
Appendix). PETA has, for years, received reports alleging animal abuse on film sets. Due to
the controversial nature of animal abuse in the film industry, and the lack of records, it is
impossible to say for definite whether the following information is completely accurate. No
records are ever made when an animal dies on or off set and the only way to obtain
information is through people working on the set, either animal wranglers or other film crew
members, who talk anonymously to animal activist groups such as PETA. In a letter sent
from PETA to the AHA, Kathy Guillermo, Senior Vice President of PETA says:
27
Not all the alleged incidents resulted in death or injury, though some apparently did.
What all the allegations do convey is that animals, as well as actors, have apparently
been put at risk and that these risks could have been prevented. Here are specific
allegations:
‘Killing Lincoln’(Moat, 2013): A dangerous scene was filmed in which a horse, with
an actor in the saddle, was forced to gallop across a narrow bridge with water, rocks
and logs beneath. The bridge had no railings or siding, and the scene was filmed at
night.
Before the scene was shot an AHA representative told Karen Rosa (oversees the AHA’s film
unit) that it was dangerous for both the horse and actor. The representative was then removed
from the set and assigned to another, while a less-experienced one was sent to allow the
filming to continue6.
‘Wrath of the Titans’(Liebesman, 2012): A horse died while being transported during
the film. Despite this, the film was given an ‘Outstanding’ rating by the AHA.
Fifteen films in total were surrounded by animal abuse allegations on film sets that were
monitored by the AHA from 2011 to 2012.
Yet they were given the ‘No Animals were
Harmed’ certificate and ratings that backed it up. Karen Rosa, the head of the AHA’s film
and television unit, and the accused in the letters from PETA, says in an interview:
Everything from the smallest insect to the largest mammal, we believe, that for the
sake of the environment, everyone should go home alive.
However she later talks about why she enjoys seeing live animals in film:
Capturing the real animal and its personality, the individual animal as well as the
collective representation of the species, is unique and very special that it can be
presented on film. (Bodner, 2011).
6
Information received through personal correspondence with Julia Gellucci, M.S., Animal Behaviour Specialist
for PETA, received October 2012.
28
Rosa’s interest in seeing the ‘real animal’ in film exposes
the fascination in the spectacle of animals. What Rosa
and audiences around the world are seeing is not the ‘real
animal’, it is the trained animal, the exploited animal and
ultimately, the false animal, yet she continues in the
illusion that what we see on screen is an accurate
Figure 4: An email to the AHA concerning ‘The
Killing Season’ (Johnson, 2013) explaining that
the production company did not want the AHA
overseeing a scene with elk fighting.
representation of the animal kingdom and defends the
continued use of live animals in film production, when
the advances in film technologies have made both the staging of animal violence and the use
of animals in film completely unnecessary.
PETA
also
received
screenshots
of
emails
sent
from
representatives to the AHA that appear to be informing them of
deaths and improper treatment towards animals on film sets
(Figures 4-5). Yet after the release of many of the films, they
received great ratings from the AHA, who themselves had
acknowledged the maltreatment. ‘Abraham Lincoln: Vampire
Figure 5: An Email sent to the AHA by one of
Hunter’ (Bekmambetov, 2012) gained an ‘Acceptable’ rating
when horses were drugged with banamine (anti-inflammatory
their representatives on the set of ‘Pirates of
the Caribbean’ (Verbinski, 2003) explaining the
deaths of close to 100 fish and squid with
explosions.
drug), proving they were considered unhealthy, and then sold and
shipped to Mexico to be slaughtered.
‘Magic Mike’ (Soderbergh, 2012) received an
‘Outstanding’ rating when not every scene was monitored. What these cases are proving is
that the AHA disclaimer cannot be guaranteed as protecting the rights and lives of animal
actors. Even when they acknowledge that some harm may have come to an animal on set,
they are still handing out good ratings dissuading viewers from questioning the use of the
29
animal on screen. Although these mistreatments did not leave every animal harmed, it
reveals the diversity of animal mistreatment in film, and an overall lack of attention to detail
for the AHA. Some animals were injured in transport to and from the film sets, some were
not given adequate food and water, others did not receive proper veterinary care and some
were completely neglected as proved in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ (Verbinski, 2003), where
over 100 squid and fish were killed with explosions over a four day period because the
production did not consider how the explosions would affect fish, which proves Scrutons
theory that fish receive no compassion or thought. The film received an ‘Acceptable’ rating.
In a statement, AHA dismissed the allegations, saying they were raised by
Second and third party sources, including a disgruntled AHA employee. These
allegations derive from falsehoods, inaccuracies and deliberately misleading
statements. (Verrier, 2012)
Although the AHA guarantee the safety of the animals used in the film industry with their
legal disclaimer that states ‘No Animals were Harmed in the Making of this Film’, what it
really means is that, on sets where AHA representatives are present, they do their best to
ensure the safety of the animals used. Off-set however, they cannot say for certain that the
animals did not meet harm, injury or neglect.
Case Study: ‘The Adventure of Milo and Otis’ (1986 and 1989)
The Japanese version of the children’s film ‘The Adventures of Chatran’ was released in
1986 (Hata, 1986) to much controversy, while the American version was released in 1989
under the name ‘The Adventures of Milo and Otis’ to a similar response from animal welfare
groups. In a tale about a pug and a small, ginger kitten getting separated from one another, it
portrays their journey to find each other again. Controversy and questioning arose due to the
30
deadly nature of some of the scenes. Most of the film was shot over a four year period
capturing shots of the pair as they wander a farm, which has the feel of pointless
improvisation and the stringing together of shots to look somewhat like a plot. However,
some of the situations the animals find themselves in appear quite deliberate and would not
have happened without human intervention. Such scenes include:

Otis (kitten) in a box on a river (Figure 6).

Otis in a box going over a waterfall.

Otis being thrown off a cliff. (Figure 9)

Milo (pug) fights a bear in a river and then on land. (Figure 8)

Otis fights a bear in a tree.

Bear biting Otis’ foot.

Flock of seagulls attack Otis.

Bear fighting many other small animals.
In each of these scenes, along with others of the pair playing with much smaller creatures like
crabs or mice, human intervention was obvious along with maltreatment to nearly all animals
used in filming. The films did not receive the ‘No Animals were Harmed’ disclaimer,
however, at the end of the credits they stated that:
The animals used were filmed under strict supervision with the utmost concern for
their handling. (The Adventures of Chatran, 1986)
After the 1989 release of the film, the AHA investigated
allegations of breaking the kitten’s foot to make it unsteady on its
feet (the scene that backs up the claim is one of Otis hobbling over
a large fallen tree), killing twenty kittens that were used in the
Figure 6: ‘Milo and Otis’: Otis in a box on a
river, soon to be introduced to the bear.
31
scene where Otis falls off the cliff7, and the pug used in the scene where it was to fight a bear
was badly injured. None of the allegations came up with any evidence and the production
team denied putting the animals in any danger, however the scenes themselves do not prove
that the film crew has the “utmost concern” for the animals.
Many scenes did not make the final film due to aggressive nature
or violence, but the ones that did make the final cut portrayed the
Figure 7: Milo after being
introduced to the bear in the
river, catches onto a branch and
looks hopelessly at the camera.
exploitation and abusing of animal actors in the film industry
(figures 7, 8 and 9). The neglect of the animal actors in ‘The
Adventures of Milo and Otis’ (Hata, 1986) is obvious and again,
proves the fascination with seeing animals hurt on screen. These films were released as
children’s films and expose the desensitization towards animal cruelty that the film industry
is promoting. By allowing children to witness the adventures of the duo and the not so
friendly encounters with other animals, the young audience
becomes so familiar with the spectacle that they subconsciously
start to ignore and become blind to it.
The AHA were around a long time
before the films were made and had
Figure 8: Milo fighting a bear in a
scene that was not cut from the film.
access to the film if they felt their presence was needed, yet a film
that used dozens of animals telling a story about a pug and a kitten
Figure 9: Otis falling off the cliff
after being attacked by seagulls in
a scene that caused the deaths of
approximately 18 kittens.
7
had no monitoring whatsoever, possibly due to it being filmed in
According to reports, about 20 kittens were thrown off the cliff in an attempt to catch a shot of the cat
walking out of the water. The kittens apparently did not survive the impact the first 18-19 times until one
eventually did and they got the shot they were looking for (Cruelty on Film, 1982).
32
Japan. Instead the AHA investigated after the film was made, and could do nothing to prove
that the allegations were accurate, because no records were made. If they had been on set
however, even their presence could have had an impact on the treatment of the animals used.
The beloved children’s film could have been a family friendly one, instead it appears more of
a statement to the malice and abuse of animals in entertainment.
Case Study: Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
One of the most vulgar films of the last century to portray animal cruelty blatantly
was released in 1980 under the title ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ (Deodata, 1980). Controversy
surrounded the film for its sensationalist content: real animal and human deaths8. The story
portrays a documentary crew adventuring into the Amazon rainforest
in search of real cannibals. The film falls under the horror/gore genre
but what audiences were not aware of to begin, was that seven real
animal deaths were captured in the film. The scenes are sensationalist
Figure 10: Actors hold down a
turtle and hack its head off. The
turtle is very much alive as this
happens.
in their approach to the animal deaths, and were cut into the film for
no other reason than the feel of reality. While vigorous attempts were
made to make the human deaths appear real, the animal’s deaths were given little effort and
instead of using animal replacements a Muskrat, a large turtle, a snake, a spider, two squirrel
monkeys and a pig were brought on set to be slaughtered, live on camera.
The scenes themselves are harrowingly graphic, slow and meticulous in their portrayal. The
first animal to die is the Muskrat having a slim knife jabbed into his throat twice before
8
A scene known as ‘The Last Road to Hell’ portrayed documentary footage of actual executions. There were
also allegations of killing actors for some scenes but these were proved false at the trial when Deodato
showed how pig intestines were used in the scene. (Davis, 2007)
33
having his insides removed. The turtle met the same fate (Figure 10) while the spider and
snake were hacked with knives. The pig, however, caused problems with the actors. The
character that was originally going to shoot the small animal refused and walked off the set,
while a different actor had no problem kicking the little pig before shooting it in the head
with a rifle. And although only one monkey can be seen being decapitated, two were used to
get the footage. Every second of the animals deaths were caught on camera and portrayed the
fear the animals felt as they either screeched or struggled to get away. Deodata represents
human barbarism towards animals used in filming and proves the worth of animal lives.
Deodata sought out to portray the deaths as spectacle, deliberately killing the animals slowly
and showing their pain to entice viewers with the realism; by showing the actual deaths of the
animals, the deaths of the humans appear just as real. In fact, they appeared so real that
Deodata, along with the producers and screenwriters were charged with producing a snuff
film. The Italian Magistrate charged them with animal cruelty and obscenity (the production
proved the human deaths were all simulated) and received a four month suspended sentence
along with hefty fines for the animal brutality (Davis, 2007).
The AHA rated the film ‘Unacceptable’, yet why were they not on set? It is uncertain
whether they have jurisdiction outside the USA as they have numerously stated that they did
not have the authority to be on certain sets, yet they have also said that they have been on
hundreds of sets worldwide. The AHA are the only group with the authority to monitor film
sets, yet they appear selective in their monitoring, as they only supervise western film
productions. The fact that ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ was filmed mostly in the Amazon rainforest
appears to be the reason for not having a representative monitoring the set. They did
however, criticize the film after it was released and urged viewers to boycott it, but it had
gained so much notoriety that many people wanted to see what the interest was. Or, possibly,
34
they wanted to see it because of the violence, knowing that it would be horrific. It is the
fascination with brutality and violence that viewers find appealing in the gore genre after all.
The AHA condemned the film and the animal cruelty was cut out of the film for the rerelease on DVD. Although the AHA could not stop the killings, they could stop people from
witnessing them. Stopping the spectatorship of such brutal scenes by editing the violence out
would impinge on the success of the film as the violence was what sold it to viewers.
Without the animal torture and pictures of human cannibalism, along with various graphic
rape scenes, the film became less popular loosing much of its original fascination. Presently
it is not difficult to find the original uncut version online and it has regained that fascination
among viewers in the past few years, quickly becoming the number one Cannibalism film of
all time.
35
Chapter 4
Monkey Business in the Film Industry.
Chimpanzees, Monkeys and Gorillas have been a part of the film industry for
decades.
They have been portrayed as comical (wearing clothing or nappies), scary (giant
gorillas terrorizing human beings) and adorable (again wearing clothing), but what hasn’t
been portrayed is the real life and characteristics of these animals. Chimpanzees have a life
span similar to humans and if kept well, can live for decades. What viewers do not know
about the chimps they see on screen is that they will only be in the first years of their lives,
ranging from 3 years to 7. At 2, they are separated from their mothers and taken to be trained
for entertainment. Their cuteness and affability is limited to their childhood though and after
the age of 7 they become aggressive and hard to handle with the ability to injure or kill actors
or trainers and it is around this time that they are retired from the movie business. Adding
insult to injury, Chimps in Hollywood are usually portrayed as buffoons, objects to be
mocked and laughed at, when in fact they are intelligent, feeling beings just like us. While
their career contains as much abuse as other animals in films, it is their retirement from the
industry that causes most of the concern. Most primates will be left at roadside zoos or
laboratories and are kept in terrible conditions, being fed food not agreeing with their dietary
needs, with no access to veterinary care and appalling accommodation. As they are no longer
any use to filmmakers, they are literally thrown to the side of the road and forgotten about.
Most accredited zoos will not accept entertainment chimps and monkeys due to the lack of
primate socialization. This lack of socialization hinders their interaction with other primates,
making them outcasts in their own species and unable to live alongside their own kind.
36
The training of primates is also difficult as they are naturally curious, playful and
mischievous creatures. The only way to train them is to beat the curiosity out of them and
replace it with fear.
Smiling chimps can be found everywhere and are greatly received by
cinema goers as delightful and lovable, however, showing their teeth in the wild is a sign of
extreme fear. This is not what audiences believe when they see the huge smiles of primates
on screen. As it relates so closely to human traits of happiness, we are unable to connect
smiling with anxiety.
The Fate of Famous Apes
The most famous of Chimps would most likely be Cheetah from the
‘Tarzan’(Gibbons, 1934) film series that aired in the 30’s. Although Cheetah is said to have
lived a long and happy life filled with fame, there have been debates as to whether the chimp
was indeed the same primate that starred in the ‘Tarzan’ films. There was more than one
chimp used in the series and with a lack of documentation, it is impossible to know where the
real Cheetah’s were left.
Tyler from the film ‘Race to Space’ (McNamara, 2001) and Ripley from the TV series
‘Seinfeld’ (1990) along with two other chimps, escaped their cages in Zoo Nebraska in 2005.
Instead of being tranquilized and re-placed in the cages, they were vigorously pursued and
shot dead with rifles by the handlers. In an investigation of the zoo in 2004, numerous
citations were made which included: unsuitable living conditions i.e. rusty and broken cages,
incongruous waste disposal and sanitation (animals were sitting in their own excrement),
non-efficient lighting (cages and accommodation was too dark for the primates) and
37
unsupervised and un-trained employees9. It is the untrained employees that shot the Chimps
dead instead of tranquilizing them proving that the workers were unfit to handle such an
incident and therefore unqualified to be around large primates.
Clyde from the Clint Eastwood film ‘Every Which Way But Loose’ (Fargo, 1978) was best
known for punching villains and making audiences laugh.
However what most audiences do not know is that Clyde did
not survive the making of the film. It was reported that he had
been dead for nearly six months by the time he gained fame
through the movie. Trainers told the media that Clyde had
Figure 11: Chubbs from Tim Burton’s
‘The Planet of the Apes’ (Burton,
2001) in the dungeon where he will
spend the rest of his life.
been beaten to make him passive during the filming. Accounts
that the lead animal trainer took Clyde to an isolated spot
because he wanted to talk with the animal, when Clyde became
inattentive, he was beaten with a cane and an axe handle. Clyde tried protecting himself with
his arms and rolling in a circle, tried to avoid the blows which were ultimately fatal. He died
of cardiac arrest a month after the beating. Although the United States Department of
Agriculture prosecuted Clyde’s owner, the trainer who beat him is still enjoying a lucrative
career as one of the top animal trainers in Hollywood10.
Chubbs is a chimpanzee that was used for the 2001 film ‘The Planet of the Apes’ (Burton,
2001) and during an investigation (by PETA) they found him living in an underground
cement pit that resembled a dungeon (Figure 11). The conditions were dirty and rancid as he
9
Documentation of citations, appendix 2.
Information found at: www.pawsweb.org/surplus.pdf
10
38
was being fed everything from rotten fruit to dog food. He still sits in his own waste to this
day.
Jiggs, who appeared in two Tarzan films, ‘Tarzan the Ape Man’ (Van Dyke, 1932) and
‘Tarzan and His Mate’ (Gibbons, 1934), and numerous smaller productions, died at the
young age of nine from Pneumonia. It is yet another example of neglect towards animals in
the acting business.
Case study: ‘The Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ (2011)
To explore the idea of never having to use a live animal in filming I would like to
introduce the first film to portray a story from an animal’s point of view without ever having
an animal involved in the process. ‘The Rise of the planets of the Apes’ (Wyatt, 2011) is a
film that portrays many aspects of the animal rights issues, from primates in research
facilities and zoos where trainers use fear to suppress instinctual behaviours, to prejudice
towards them from a social point of view, lesser beings require lesser thought. It raises
ethical questions in regard to the treatment of all animals, and so the director, Rupert Wyatt,
chose not to use animals in the filming of the epic drama. He explains that the theme of the
movie is humanity's mistreatment and abuse of captive apes. Wyatt was adamant about not
using animals during production especially now in the age of CGI, so he wanted to send the
message to other studios that there is no need to use apes in the film making process.
He
says that it would have been offensively hypocritical to use live animals in a film defending
the rights of animals (Berhaupt, 2012).
39
Wyatt used the same technology that was developed for ‘Avatar’ (Avatar, 2009) to depict his
story i.e. computer generated imagery. The performers were all human, wearing performance
capture technology that could capture the movement and emotions of the actors. Primates
express themselves similarly to humans so human voices were also used for the primate’s
voices and sounds. The researchers for the film also spent time in zoo’s observing the
primates movements and facial expressions so that the actors could accurately present the
animals. This also allows the film to depict apes and chimps like the sentient beings they are,
with the same emotional needs as human beings.
The results were outstanding when the film released in 2009, as audiences witnessed the first
film portraying animals without having actually used animals. Caesar, the lead primate
played by Andy Serkis, endeavours through emotional and physical abuse with such realistic
responses that it was not easy to recognise CGI’s involvement. PETA has praised the film
for its decisions and awarded it a PETA Proggy Award, which applauds companies for
innovative and animal-friendly achievements. It also received PETA's seal of approval both
for the film's use of CGI and for highlighting animal rights messages. The applaud-able
decisions made during the film making process has proved that the use of animals in the film
industry is no longer required, as the film received numerous awards for best special and
visual effects, best actors and Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Feature
Motion Picture.
Compared to the earlier ‘Planet of the Apes’ films, which used live primates and human
actors, Wyatt’s version is visibly better quality, as the use of CGI is not noticeable. In terms
of animal cruelty, while there have been no allegations towards the earlier films, as I have
40
previously stated, Chubbs starred in the 2001 ‘The Planet of the Apes’ (Burton, 2001) and
now spends his days in an underground pit. Wyatt’s portrayal of primates on the other hand
will not affect any animals in this way.
41
Chapter 5
Trained to Entertain.
Every animal audiences observe on the big screen has been trained for the purpose of
entertaining. Whether it’s a dog doing backflips, a primate walking up right and dancing or a
horse rearing up angrily, every action that isn’t forced i.e. tripwire, is a learned action. The
business opportunities for training animals to entertain in film and television are vast. With
the thousands of species of animals used in film, there is no end to the necessity of animal
trainers or wranglers. With that opportunity though, there are no set rules for the training of
animal actors, which means that there are no repercussions to abusing the animals. ‘Amazing
Animal Productions’ is the world’s largest animal provider for the entertainment industry.
There website states that they have had:
35 years of experience in providing affection-trained exotic and domestic animals for
the television and motion picture industry11.
The animals they train range from birds, dogs, and farm animals to ‘Jungle giants’ and sea
lions. They also declare that their:
Animals are hand-raised by trainers at home. That's why they're so safe and
comfortable in human surroundings. All of our animals are Affection Trained with
love, respect and positive reinforcement.
Unfortunately, the affection-based training they received has been refuted by PETA as they
investigated the organisation for abuse and neglect towards the animal. Throughout the
inspection they found that:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) [had] cited Amazing Animal
Productions for failure to have an adequate environmental enhancement plan to
promote the psychological well-being of primates, failure to provide adequate space,
11
Website found at http://www.amazinganimalproductions.com/joomla/component/content/?view=feature.
42
exhibiting animals without a valid USDA license, and failure to handle chimpanzees
safely (see Appendix).
In 2009, they were also cited for having insufficient veterinary care, leaving an incredibly
matted Great Pyrenees dog to the extent that it was affecting his health and failure to supply
adequate space for hybrid puppies to lie in a manner that was normal. The list goes on and
explains twelve citations from between 2004 and 2009 including nearly a hundred
misconducts on behalf of the company. This reveals that massive lack of care towards animal
actors being trained to entertain. The animals in their repertoire received little care towards
their psychological well-being which problematized the hope of any of the animals being replaced in sanctuaries.
There are many other animal training facilities that are violating the rights and welfare of
animals in entertainment that continue to violate and exploit them. Such organisations
include: Amarillo Wildlife Refuge whose owner pleaded guilty to federal wildlife trafficking
charges, Steve Martin’s Working Wildlife has a catalogue of USDA citations that includes
housing primates in the dark for up to 18 hours a day, Hawthorn Corporation which has a
long history of USDA sanctions for abusing and neglecting animals, Arbuckle Wilderness
also has a long history with the USDA as 60 charges of Animal Welfare Act violations were
charged from 1999 to 2002 and M&C Exotics who advertise animals for sale on a regular
basis and have been cited for improper treatment and unclean living standards for the
animals. This list goes on, as the most that can be done to prevent this type of behaviour
towards animals is fining the parties involved and withholding licenses.
However,
organisations like these will continue to deal in animals as long as there is a market for it.
43
Case Study: Water for Elephants (2011)
Training animals for film and television can bring about many cases of abuse, as not
all animals are train-able. In many situations, negative reinforcement is a technique used
which can not only physically hurt the animal, but psychologically scar the creature also.
This issue came to the forefront of the animals in film subject in 2011 after the release of the
film ‘Water for Elephants’ (Lawrence, 2011). In a story portraying animal abuse, it was
behind the scenes that were much worse than the abuse portrayed in the film. The elephants
used in the film were from a company called ‘Have Trunk Will Travel’ who in an
investigation were found to be beating the elephants in order to force them to perform.
Undercover footage of the elephants being beaten with bull hooks, electrocuted and
screaming in pain can now be found online12. On the set however, the AHA provided video
proof that the animals were not harmed on the set and were treated humanely.
Reese
Witherspoon says of AHA,
They're very conscious of how the animals were treated. They're on set everyday…
They're just the happiest animals. You can tell. (Zelman, 2011)
It is doubtful, however, that the actors would have known anything about the animals being
abused. The elephants were abused before the filming started, so not only would the actors,
directors, producers, and crew not know about the cruelty, but the AHA, who are in a position
to protect animals used in film, also would not be aware. This is exactly the problem with
protecting animals used in film. The only group with the authority to monitor the safety of
the actors only has access to the film set, not the housing, care, transport or training. With the
animal acting business booming, it is impossible to inspect every training facility without the
resources and therefor many organisations are getting away with abusing the animals and
12
Information found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3tqsYfMq
44
using negative reinforcement to train them. What’s worse even still, is that the abuse is not
illegal.
‘A-Z Animals Ltd’ on the other hand, is a British based group that also deal in training
animals for film and television.
Although their website 13 advertise animals ‘for hire’
exposing the commodification of animals for film, there have been no citations for
mistreatment of animals. The company work in both Britain and Ireland in advertising, film,
television and photography. They work with a wide variety of animals but not to the extent
of ‘Amazing Animal Productions’ with their exotic creatures.
When asked about their
supervision on sets they responded that
The shoot and the welfare of the animals are monitored throughout by a veterinary
surgeon on set - as is normal on all TV commercial shoots - our company is
instrumental in introducing the concept of the attendance of qualified veterinary
surgeons on such shoots. It is our guidance to all our clients that they should have a
veterinary surgeon in attendance to monitor animal welfare.14
They also stated that positive reinforcement is their only method of training, awarding the
animals with treats so that they learn the difference between the behaviour that gets awarded
and the behaviour that is not. They continue to say about the animals that
They learn very quickly that they are training the trainer to give them the reward they
seek, by offering the behaviour that elicits the reward! This allows the horse, dog or
whichever animals to decide how best to achieve the reward they themselves wish to
achieve. Classically, this would have had its beginnings as operant behaviour training
as coined by BF Skinner although we have refined this somewhat further - it's a very
kind, highly focused way of training.
13
14
Information found at : http://www.a-zanimals.co.uk/animals-for-hire/our-animals-for-hire
Personal correspondence with ‘A-Z Animals Ltd’ 10/12/2012
45
Organisations like this are rare in the world of animal entertainment, as it is usually easier to
scare an animal into doing certain actions than taking the time to train it under positive
conditions. The training of animals itself is endangering both the mental and physical health
of animals. Wild animals have extremely specialized needs. Big cats, elephants and bears
are roaming animals, requiring a lot of open space to explore and exercise. In training
facilities these animals are subjected to intense confinement and deprived of opportunities
that express their natural behaviour.
This often leads to psychological distress. They
become neurotic, pacing back and forth (as one would see them do in Zoos) and elephants
develop painful foot conditions and arthritis. The chimpanzee grin we see so much in
advertising and on screen, is as mentioned before, a sign of fear, which they perform on
command as a result of fear-based training methods. As young primates such as chimps are
curious and energetic, their trainers physically assault and psychologically trouble them in
order to calm them down. The training of wild animals is not easy, it takes time and effort
alongside attention and care but most of the organisations set to train animals to entertain do
not bother with these training techniques, instead opting for the cheaper and more brutal fearbased training.
By acknowledging this often deadly training of animals, one is capable of understanding a bit
more that the animals we see on screen, are indeed false representations of their species.
They are trained to do everything from smiling to hand-stands, all for the purpose of
entertaining the masses.
46
Chapter 6
When Does the Use of Animals Become the Abuse of Animals?
This is a highly disputed question. There are many areas of the animal rights
movement from disagreeing with the use of animals in farming, laboratories and film, to
agreeing with them as long as the animals are treated compassionately. It is a complex
subject with many different groups on either side of the argument. However, when regarding
filmed media, which has no benefit for human beings other than enjoyment and pleasure, the
question of the use of animals is easier to define. When using the Ethical Arithmetic
associated with animal testing it is clear that animal pain and suffering outweighs the
contribution to human beings. Replacing the word “experiment” with ‘scene’ we get the
following:
If performing a [scene] would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is
ethically wrong to perform that [scene].15
Thus, using animals in film and harming them because of it is ethically wrong as not using
them in film wouldn’t cause any harm. However as it has been over one hundred years since
the issue of animal cruelty and exploitation was acknowledged, it is required to find the
difference, if any, in the treatment of animals used in film between then and the present.
What laws have been put into practice? What changes have been made to the rights of
animals used in filming? While it is obvious that animal cruelty is positively still a concern,
there have been changes in the way the animal the animal is both observed and represented.
At the beginning of cinema and well into the 70’s and 80’s, animals were seen as humorous,
anthropomorphised, side-kicks; creatures with human values, emotions and needs. Certain
species have been stereotyped, such as the bat, now seen as a bloodsucking creature from the
15
Information found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml
47
many ‘Dracula’ films, the suicidal lemmings from ‘White Wilderness’ (Algar, 1958) and the
man eating sharks as seen and embodied in ‘Jaws’ (Spielberg, 1975) . In the last ten years or
so there has been a shift both in the way animals are perceived and portrayed, especially in
light of the many nature documentary films being released attempting to capture the real
animal.
‘The Cove’ (Psihoyos, 2009) exposes the harrowing slaughter of thousands of
dolphin each year in Japan, ‘March of the Penguins’ (Jacquet, 2005) looks at the annual
journey of the Emperor penguins and ‘Arctic Tale’ (Ravetch, 2007) portrays the life cycle of
a walrus mother and her calf and a polar bear mother with her cub. Each of these films have
revealed the true animal in many senses, whether the exploitation of them or their instinctual
migrations.
Fiction films like ‘Rise of the planet of the Apes’ (Wyatt, 2011) are also
depicting animals as real beings that require the same respect as human beings.
While the representations of animals are slowly modifying, film has yet to cease neglecting
animals. Although the use of non-humans in film is shifting slightly, animals are still being
mistreated, abused and killed within the movie business, whether it is in their training (Water
for Elephants), the actual filming (Cannibal Holocaust) or off-set (Wrath of The Titans). As
human beings, we generally don’t like to think about the wild, natural animal because we
have just about extinguished nature from our daily lives. We prefer our animals framed
within our screens, domesticated within our homes and dressed up for our spectacle, so the
use of animals will certainly continue to fill our Television screens, the question is; are they
protected? Over the past 70 years frequent allegations have been made about animal neglect
on film sets each year exhibiting the lack of concern for animal safety by the AHA. Even
with AHA representatives on set, non-humans have been killed, neglected or mistreated in
other ways, as proved by ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ which killed over a hundred squid and
fish with explosions while AHA was monitoring. The AHA, who ‘guarantee’ the welfare of
48
animals in film are becoming less reliable and their stamp of approval guarantees nothing.
Throughout the research for this book, it has become clear that the AHA, while being a
privately funded organisation, receives donations from the Screen Actors Guild (FifthEstate,
1982), implying that they are too close to the film industry to be completely unbiased. Many
other organisations do not believe in the work of the AHA, Animal Liberation Front have
said that the AHA “don't do a good job”, PETA has said “The AHA is not doing enough!” 16
explaining the “recent allegations of cruelty on film sets, and negligence of AHA”.
An additional issue to take concern with is the consequence of maltreatment and the lack of
punishment. Since their Guidelines are just that, there is no penalty for not following them,
nor does it state anywhere that the film crew must contact the AHA when they are using live
animals, instead the AHA ‘recommend’ they be contacted. In fact the only power the AHA
has over a film is their ability to withhold the ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ disclaimer, which
may or may not affect the movie at the box office. This has not stopped films from using the
disclaimer illegally however, as several recent films have used the slogan illegitimately such
as ‘The kings Speech’ (Hopper, 2010).
Although there were no animal mistreatment
allegations, the film was threatened with legal action by the AHA if they did not take the
disclaimer off the end credits as no AHA representatives monitored the film. The producers
of the film claimed they did not realise the slogan was trademarked:
As an independent UK production we were unaware that the phrase ‘no animals were
harmed’ had a certification mark and any implication that the American Humane
Association was involved in our UK production was unintentional. (Gardner, 2011)
16
Personal Correspondences: Animal Liberation Front, emails received from 09/2012 to 11/2012
PETA, emails received from 09/2012 to 15/2013
49
In a statement about the film, Karen Rosa (head of the film and Television Unit) said that
changing the phrasing could rectify the situation but that "If there's any implication of an
endorsement, it could still cause confusion." (Gardner, 2011). It appears by this statement
that the AHA is concerned more with the legal issues of using the trademarked disclaimer
than with the animal actor’s safety.
Changing the phrasing of the term is still ensuring
audiences that the animals were cared for but since there is no evidence to prove that, it is
impossible to say whether the animals were looked after or not. Consequently the AHA
should not be content with the producers simply altering the phrasing as it could well be
dishonest.
Finally, it is imperative to address the most senior advisers in the AHA Film and television
Unit, since it is their responsibility to oversee all productions. According to PETA‘s senior
vice president Kathy Guillermo (see Appendix), many of the allegations throughout the past
three years, although not all, have involved MS. Karen Rosa, the Director of the Film and
Television Unit. PETA received countless reports from people on film sets that believed the
AHA representatives had not received the support needed from Ms. Rosa to ensure the safety
of the animals. It was also alleged that inexperienced representatives were purposefully
chose to monitor sets because they would not make filming difficult. Guillermo goes on to
say that:
Whistleblowers allege that Ms. Rosa is a reflection of a pervasive culture at AHA in
which ‘relationship building’ with producers and directors has become more
important than effective oversight. (See Appendix)
A specific allegation concerns the film ‘Lone Ranger’ (Verbinski, 2013) which I have
mentioned previously, where an AHA representative who reviewed the script was anxious
50
about certain risky scenes that involved animals and a river. The representative’s worries
were not backed by AHA management and a trainer was fired for not cooperating with the
producers. Not surprisingly, an incident did occur with a horse as it was swept downriver
with a rider. Although neither were injured, the incident proves that the AHA’s concerns lie
with their relationship with the film crew. Ms. Rosa has proved that animal welfare on set in
not a primary concern. However, the AHA have argued that the need for a good relationship
with producers/directors is paramount as it ensures that the film companies will contact AHA
for further film productions (FifthEstate, 1982). Nevertheless, if the AHA are not ensuring
animal safety in films to their full capacity, because of their need to build ‘relationships’ with
film producers, then their word simply cannot be trusted. If they are willing to allow
potentially harmful and risky scenes to go ahead for a film crew, then is it possible they are
willing to cover up details about the safety of their animal actors also?
There are ways of altering the use of live animals in film to ensure and guarantee their safety.
In a letter from Julia Gallucci (PETA, Animal behaviour specialist) to the AHA she suggests
numerous ideas that would do so. These include banning the use of great apes in the film
industry, adding “Pre-production training and living conditions off set were not monitored” to
the current ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ disclaimer and strongly advising the use of CGI and
animatronics where necessary.
Cast Study: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ (Jackson, 2012) was the much anticipated prequel to
‘The Lord of the Rings’ (Jackson, 2001) trilogy. It portrays the journey of the young Bilbo
51
Baggins setting out on an adventure with dwarves to reclaim their stolen home. The use of
CGI throughout the film illuminates the fantasy aspect of the narrative, and also gives the
impression of non-reality. With most films using CGI the use of real animals is not needed,
however, Peter Jackson did indeed use live animals for the film. Before the film was finished
production, reports were alleging that three horses had died due to the appalling housing
conditions approximately 186 miles from the main set17. The farm itself was described as a
“death trap” by animal handlers/wranglers hired to monitor the animals (Cooke, 2012). After
production finished however, numerous more reports were made stating that 27 animals had
indeed been killed on the dangerous farm, as it was filled with sinkholes and jagged fencing.
One miniature pony, Rainbow, fell from the bank surrounding the farm
overnight and was found at the bottom with a broken back the next
Figure 12: Injured horse on the set
of ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected
Journey’.
morning. She was euthanized the next day. Two other horses got their
legs caught in the fencing which caused serious injuries, and were covered up for the
shooting of the scenes. Six goats, six sheep and a dozen chickens were also killed on two
separate occasions when dogs attacked. It was also alleged that a horse was hobbled (his legs
were bound and he was left lying on the ground for over three hours), which is against the
AHA guidelines. Although the wranglers informed the production company of the danger,
they did not relocate the animals.
Throughout the entire production numerous animal
wranglers left their jobs (Cooke, 2012). Peter Jackson redirected the allegations by focusing
on the use of animals in his action scenes. He says “The producers completely reject the
accusations that 27 animals died due to mistreatment during the making of the film”
(Newkirk, 2012) and goes on to say:
17
Information found on AHA website at: http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/newsreleases/aha-the-hobbit-animal-deaths.html
52
Extraordinary measures were taken to make sure that animals were not used during
action sequences or any other sequence that might create undue stress for the animals
involved. Over 55 per cent of all shots using animals in The Hobbit are in fact
computer generated; this includes horses, ponies, rabbits, hedgehogs, birds, deer, elk,
mice, wild boars and wolves. The American Humane Association (AHA) was on hand
to monitor all use of animals by the production. No animals died or were harmed on
set during filming. We regret that some of these accusations by wranglers who were
dismissed from the film over a year ago are only now being brought to our attention.
We are currently investigating these new allegations and are attempting to speak with
all parties involved to establish the truth. (Newkirk, 2012)
Jackson refers to the animals used on set, however, it was off set that these animals died. He
speaks of the AHA monitoring the film, but as previously stated, they do not monitor the
animals training, housing or transport to and from the sets, which factored into the deaths of
the animals used in ‘The Hobbit’. The AHA were indeed ‘monitoring’ the film, however
there were accusations that they were absent from numerous scenes involving animals. It
was after the third horse died that the AHA recommended better housing for the animals but
were ignored. AHA President and CEO Dr. Robin Ganzert made the following statement:
We are currently only empowered to monitor animal actors while they are working on
production sets. We do not have either the jurisdiction or funding to extend that
oversight to activities or conditions off set or before animals come under our
protection. There are too many incidents off the set and this must stop. It is vital that
we work with the industry to bring the kind of protection we have for animals during
filming to all phases of production. (Edel, 2012)
Since then the AHA are asking for additional jurisdiction and funding to keep animal actors
safe not only on set, but off set as well
To address illegitimate suppliers of animals and to ensure proper training, housing
and retirement of these important and beloved co-stars of film and television.18
18
Quote found on AHA website at: http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/newsreleases/aha-the-hobbit-animal-deaths.html
53
As of yet, no actual action has been taken to change the policies. It is important to note that it
took twenty seven animal deaths on the production of a single film for the AHA to respond
with any kind of proposed changes to their policies. This book has looked at 23 specific
films with animal abuse allegations, with, on average, two animals hurt per case which brings
the total animal abuse cases to 46. Therefore, an average of 46 animals have been hurt since
the AHA began its film monitoring. I would also like to point out that I have not, by any
means, documented every animal cruelty case alleged in film, just the more prominent of
them, which suggests an even higher number and yet the AHA brag a 99.98% success rate
(Arbeiter, 2012). It also begs the question of whether the AHA would have responded as
heavily if the allegations hadn’t been leaked to the public.
The use of animals in film will continue to be a common feature of motion pictures. It has
been a century since animal abuse in film was first recognised and in spite of this, little has
changed in terms of animal welfare. The AHA was established to ensure the well-being of
animal actors yet have proven time and time again that they are thoroughly inefficient at
carrying out this task. They argue a lack of jurisdiction causes difficulties in enforcing their
oversight of film sets and regulations, yet they act more as a source of marketing for
compliant filmmakers being able to boast the ‘No Animals Were harmed’ disclaimer. With
the public allegations surrounding ‘The Hobbit’ the AHA’s work came to the forefront of
many accusations causing them to rethink their actions and propose new regulations, bringing
hope for the future of animal actors, however, it will be ineffective without the match in
competence. All I can say is I hope they manage the Children’s unit better than they do the
animal’s one.
54
Part Two
Animals in Filmed Media
“For he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men”
Immanuel Kant
55
Chapter One
Documenting Animal Behaviour
There have been hundreds of documentary films produced to portray the behaviours of
animals in the wild as we have lost touch with them as the human race developed and left rural areas
for city life. In an effort to bring the wild closer to audiences everywhere documentaries have been
made about all species of animals depicting daily routines, breeding habits and socializing. These are
usually filmed in their natural habitats.
Such programs were originally made for television,
particularly for public broadcasting channels, but some have also been made for cinematic release in
recent years. While ‘Documentary’ insinuates that these films are completely real, only filming the
animals in their natural habitats and not disturbing them, it is untrue to say that this is exactly how
they are filmed. There have been numerous accusations of falsity surrounding some films, where it
has been said that the animals filmed were captive ones placed in their filmed predicaments. One
such film, called “Wild Fox” (1913), reportedly released captive rabbits so that foxes could catch and
kill them for the cameras. In this case, the reality behind the fox’s movements was faked in order to
get captivating and ghastly shots of the deaths of rabbits. This technique was often used and it is
rumoured that the rabbits legs were strapped so that they are unable to get away from the predators.
In 1930 another documentary caused outrage with the press. The film portrayed a twelve thousand
mile trek across Africa. One scene exposes a tribal lion hunt but was later revealed to have been
filmed at a zoo in Hollywood again portraying the falsity of certain documentary films.
While some documentaries put animals in danger in order to get sensational shots, others do the
opposite, leading the viewers to believe an animal is being hurt, when in fact it was in no danger at all.
“Winged Migration” (2002) is an award winning documentary that follows the flight of birds around
the world. One of the most commanding scenes showed an injured bird being stalked by crabs. The
56
bird is eventually swarmed by the crabs and devoured. This is not what happened, however. In fact,
the bird was rescued by the production team and replaced with a dead fish. Another feature of the
reality behind the film is that the birds were actually raised by the film crew and their migration was
simply shots of the birds following the crew. An investigation by “The Sunday Telegraph” revealed
that viewers are often shown animals allegedly in the wild when they are not (Mendick, 2011). The
BBC have long been producing nature documentaries, gaining approval and applause worldwide for
their work. The corporation is also being accused of violating its own guidelines by failing to declare
when footage has been obtained in studios in specially designed sets rather than in the wild. The
controversy began when footage of a ‘wild’ Polar bear giving birth to a cub was found to be a captive
animal from Holland. Although the BBC’s own guidelines state that “Audiences should never be
deceived or misled by what they see or hear” it is stated on a linked website on how the film was
made that the Polar bear was indeed a captive one. A spokesperson for the BBC also said that the
viewers were not being deceived and that guidelines had not been breached, claiming the script for the
polar bear birth was carefully worded and did not misinform the audience. David Attenborough, a
narrator for many of the BBC’s wildlife documentaries, also denies misleading audiences but goes on
to say:
“If you had tried to put a camera in the wild in a polar bear den, she would either
have killed the cub or she would have killed the cameraman, one or the
other,” (Mendick, 2011)
It appears that there is a lot of secrecy surrounding documentary filmmaking, even when the purpose
of seeing a documentary film is to get the truth. Truth is not the case with most documentaries, as in
order to make an entertaining film there would need to be some sensationalized, violent or emotional,
shots of animals. Attenborough was correct in his statement about not being able to film such scenes,
the camera in the animals surroundings would certainly be noticed, discouraging such behaviour. The
only option for gaining these scenes would be to create them. However, the problem again is
dishonesty. It appears frequently in the filmmaking domain, and Nature Documentary films are no
exception.
57
Case study
Disney’s ‘White Wilderness’ (1958)
As the film industry developed and the documentation of real life events started
to take hold in film, animals began taking centre stage as an air of mystery still
surrounded much of the animal kingdom and how they existed. Human populations in
cities and urban areas are removed from the animal kingdom more so than those who
live in rural areas, who are surrounded by nature and a menagerie of animals. Walt
Disney is now best known for his lovable children’s cartoons and fairy tales, but single
handed, he created a platform for wildlife films with his early work ‘White Wilderness’
(Algar, 1958), an award winning documentary which portrayed the day to day lives of
animals indigenous to Canada. Controversy soon surrounded the film as accusations of
animal abuse began. It is a common myth that lemmings can and have committed
suicide on occasion but Disney chose to draw on this illusion, portraying a mass of
lemmings apparently jumping off a cliff into the Arctic Ocean. In 1982, reports were
produced claiming that the lemmings were hurtled off the cliff on a rotating disc, and
not into the Arctic Ocean, but the Bow River in Alberta, Canada (FifthEstate, 1982).
The narrator of the film, Winston Hibler, stated that the Lemmings were not likely to be
committing suicide, rather, they were trying to find a way across the water and died of
exhaustion. It is doubtful that the Lemmings were trying to find a way across the
‘Arctic Ocean’ as the narrator suggests, as it implies they could see the other side, and
were innocently trying to get across, yet what happened was less than innocent as
thousands of the small animals were hurtled off a cliff to their deaths.
While
58
‘Documentary’ implies that what the audience is seeing is real life captured, ‘White
Wilderness’ did not capture the real life of the Lemming species, instead they were
subjected to abuse in order to portray a hypothetical situation. Burt suggests that:
These nature films often impose a human narrative, a human cultural aesthetic, upon
animals. The films may be flat-out faked: there’s a rich tradition of nature-film fakery.
But even when there’s no explicit attempt to deceive, still, they may mislead or
miseducate viewers. (Burt, 2002)
Disney indeed misrepresented the lemming population by fabricating the suicide scene,
however, it was not the only fabricated scene. In another snippet, Disney goes on to show a polar
bear cub climbing a large mound of rocky snow. It depicts the young cub’s curiosity and sense of
adventure as he naturally gets into trouble climbing the rocky snow mountain. High up, he takes a
tumble and falls, as this white bundle makes his way down, he
completely loses control and falls fast down the mountain
hitting jagged rocks.
The audience assume that this is
harmless and natural, all young animals get into trouble at
certain points, except this was not natural, it was staged
(Warren, 2011).
Figure 13: Apparently real footage caught in a
submarine from ‘Mermaids: The Body Found’.
The rocky and dangerous mountain was
man-made and the cub was a captive animal.
This one
documentary film portrays two issues with its attempt to
capture real life. Firstly, it is the falsifying of information and deceiving audiences, an issue with
which directly harms to the term documentary, since it denotes honesty. Secondly, it raises ethical
issues about the use of animals for films. Disney purposefully put a polar bear cub in harms way and
filmed the whole ordeal while also murdering the large group of lemmings with the intention of
portraying the reality of these animals. It illustrates that cruelty towards animals has been pervasive
in wildlife filming for decades and yet his greatly received documentary paved the way for this
genre of filmmaking.
59
So much so, that even the term documentary has been permanently tarred by fakery with the
recent release of a documentary exploring the possibility of the existence of mermaids.
While the film does not directly correlate with animal rights in film, it is a prime example of
how documentaries can be completely fabricated to the point of using myth as reality.
‘Mermaids: The Body Found’ (Mermaids; The Body Found, 2011) was aired on Animal
Planet, a channel that had previously not aired fictional documentaries, causing millions to
fall for the hoax, believing that through evolution, some human beings took to the waters and
oceans and grew gills and fins. The documentary used actors as scientists and experts, but
also completely staged a scene where a group of young men found the body of a washed up
mermaid and got footage of it on their phones. The use of Dramatic Re-enactments also
reinforces the reality of the film, as these are only utilized in documentaries when real
footage is unavailable. Animal Planet has since been discredited by viewers for allowing a
false documentary to air, with hidden disclaimers that still don’t openly explain that it was
fake. Animal Planet claims to be programming reality television on animals but reality and
television are contradictory terms (Malamud, 2010).
An Actor who played Dr. Paul
Robertson has said that they deliberately presented the footage in a documentary style to
enhance the naivety of the viewers. He said
“I wanted the story to appeal to a sense of genuine possibility, and incorporating real
science and evolutionary theory and real-world scientific examples — such as animals
that have made the transition from land to sea, much as we suggest mermaids did —
and citing real, albeit controversial theories like the Aquatic Ape Hypobook,
grounded it. Using a straight, documentarian approach made the story more
persuasive by appealing more to a sense of intellectual possibility as well as
emotional possibility." (Didymus, 2013)
Instead, what the film portrays is both the shocking mentality of those who will believe
anything they’re told as long as there’s a plausible scenario made, and the distance the falsity
of documentary films has come, from Disney who produced false scenes of animals, to
60
Bennett who completely fabricated real evidence of mythical creatures to fool the world into
believing in a completely implausible scenario.
What this fake film also portrays, through
the use of traditional documentary techniques, is that documentaries regularly mislead the
public and that no documentary should be taken as wholly real.
Another issue with documenting real animals in the wild is that it can be seen as an
imposition on behalf of humans. The reclusiveness of animals is a self-protective and human
intrusion “may breach an important barrier between ourselves and many other animals”
(Malamud, 2010). As captivating as films on creatures far beneath the sea, or deep into the
Amazon, places inaccessible to humans, are, it is often questioned whether it is right for us to
even see such behaviours. There are still creatures hundreds of feet beneath the sea that are
undiscovered, living their lives far from the reach of human imposing. However, with
technological advances and scientific discoveries, even the illustrious giant squid has been
caught on camera. Although it was also hurt in the encounter, losing a long tentacle as it
literally gets caught on the camera and fights to get away from it. Human curiosity has now
caused the infamous giant squid to come under attack, now being sought and hunted down,
not even to prove their existence anymore, simply for the sake of it. However, if the first real
encounter with this creature caused it to be harmed, regardless of how little, what does that
mean for further interactions? It is almost impossible for the human race to discover an
animal or organism without wanting to investigate more and obtain more information.
The animal rights documentary as a genre has taken the world by storm with more and more
being released every year, however, Randy Malamud asks:
61
“Does this testify to our increasing interest and concern for other animals or does it
mean that we’ve dragged these creatures down to the level of mass entertainment,
which is inherently anti-ecological and anti-animal because of the hegemonies of
consumption culture in Western industrial society?” (Malamud, 2010)
62
Chapter Two
Animal Rights Documentaries
Animal rights have become a massive portion of documentary films, largely due to
the rise in animal activism worldwide. They raise ethical issues and questions on the use of
animals in modern society. It is not a western genre, rather a worldwide view on animal
rights, displaying the horrors of the meat/fur industry, animal testing, and factory farming
globally. While they are not directly related to animals harm in filmed media, it is important
to note them in this book as they are a part of a larger issue of animal rights, they portray
various types of animal cruelty as a way of exposing the issues. They do not harm animals
for the purpose of filming, rather they capture live footage of the slaughter of animals and
cruelty towards them. However, the question of why animal slaughter is caught on camera
only to be released to the public is raised again, are we reducing the murder of animals to
entertainment, or are we raising awareness of such massacres by exposing the ugly truth?
When researching the definition of murder, another aspect of the animal rights dilemma
appears in the wording; murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by
another. Therefore killing an animal, for whatever purpose, is not considered murder by
society, due to the fact that only a human being can be ‘murdered’, however killing is to take
a life, no matter whose life it is. For animal activists, this is the case, killing an animal is
murder and this is what they portray in their movies. One such film ‘Earthlings’ (Earthlings,
2005) depicts the extent to which human barbarianism has affected animals in everyday
society. It begins by comparing modern day society with Nazi’s because of our treatment of
animals. Instead of Jews it’s animals of all species that we are needlessly killing in a
63
“holocaust of massive proportions” (Harell, 2009).
Like the Nazi’s human society has
methodically built a world in which animals are tormented, suffering and eliminated because
of their identity as the other. The film looks deep into our use of animals in all areas of life,
including as pets, food, clothing, in entertainment of all sorts and scientific research. A
difficult film to watch, it portrays the horrors of the real treatment of animals through the use
of undercover footage, showing places that would previously not be seen, revealing the
shocking nature of the world’s biggest animal industries. One animal industry ‘Earthlings’
exposes is the fur industry, allowing viewers to see exactly how animals are skinned.
Shockingly, it is done ante mortem, with no sedative or anaesthetic to ease their pain. After
their fur has been successfully detached they are discarded into massive bins and left to die,
all of which was caught on camera for the film. The viewers get a direct view of an animal
(fox or dog, it is unknown what exactly the animal is) lying in one of these bins, skinless,
barely able to move, unable to blink and obviously waiting for death. However, the question
of whether it was completely necessary to show such graphic and distressing images comes
into question again. Was the footage of the poor animal used only to sicken its viewers into
understanding the abuse, was it sensational footage that producers knew would get a
reaction? The answer is probably yes, as some animal activists feel that unless people are
aware of such horrors they will not understand the extent of the cruelty.
In a short video, Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the animal-human relationship and says
that separating from animals and experiences with them is harmful. With cities expanding,
our connection to animals and nature is decreasing. We no longer have to think about where
our food and clothing comes from due to industrialization and mass production.
He
continues saying that if we can’t see it, then it is easy not to care, “we’ve already seen what
64
happens when humans don’t care, it’s ugly” (Tyson, 2011). This notion of detachment from
the real world was addressed in Jean Baudrillard’s essay “Simulacra and Simulations”
(Baudrillard, 1994). In it he expresses how the beginning of Postmodernity was dominated
by mass production and industrial capitalism. He proposes that our society has become so
reliant on models and representations that we have lost all connection to the real world. With
countless misrepresentations of animals in filmed media, society is unable to distinguish the
real animal from the false. With this loss of connection and distance from the facts of where
our food and clothing actually comes from, we don’t have enough information to care about
the animals that provide sustenance and clothing. ‘Earthlings’ gives audiences a chance to
gain the knowledge of where our dairy, meat and fur comes from, so that we can decrease the
distance between us and animals.
65
Case Study
The Cove 2009
‘The Cove’ (The Cove, 2009) records the pursuit of an animal activist from the Earth Island
Institute in his attempt to stop the annual slaughter of over 20, 000 dolphins in Taiji, Japan.
O Barry and his team from the Oceanic Preservation Society risk arrest setting up underwater
cameras in a cove that is used to trap dolphins each year. The cove itself is heavily guarded
and the team are recognised as enemies by the authorities for their interferences. However,
the risk was worth it as the cameras successfully
capture the massacre.
Some of the dolphins
captured are sold to marine parks, while the
remaining ones are killed and sold in Japanese
markets. The film juxtaposes images of dolphins
Figure 14: Shocking footage finally caught the
fisherman massacring the dolphins in Taiji, Japan.
swimming freely in the ocean, to scenes where they
are thrashing in a confined area, struggling to free
themselves and their young. However, what makes this film stand out from the other animal
rights documentaries, is the way it was produced. With a team consisting of professional
freedivers, a photographer, marine technician, and DNA scientist, the film felt more like a
spy thriller than animal rights documentary. It reveals the sordid secret of a town, Taiji, in
Japan, that kills 23,000 dolphins and cetaceans each September. The film captures the
troubles the crew found themselves in as they attempted to gain footage of a lagoon, hidden
from sight. The fisherman surrounding the cove did everything they could to stop the
slaughter being caught on camera. They failed however, as the crew secretly, in the middle
of the night, placed camera’s, underwater camera’s and sound equipment in and around the
notorious lagoon. The massacre is caught on camera for the first time ever as the water turns
66
from blue to red in a matter of minutes, with fisherman laughing, delighted with their catch,
spearing the thrashing dolphins until they die. The intention of the filmmakers is simply to
stop the slaughter, and as Louie Psihoyos says at the beginning of the film, they tried to do it
legally. When they were unable, they did everything they could to do something about the
deaths of 23,000 cetaceans, which resulted in the making of the documentary, which included
a direct call to action giving website to look at and number to text if you wish to get involved.
This resulted in over 1,900,000 people either joining the OPS (Oceanic Preservation Society)
or directly taken action urging leaders to end the slaughter.
One of the more startling aspects of the film itself is the footage taken of a meeting for the
International Whaling Commission, where the Japanese spokesman tries to convince other
countries to overturn the anti whaling laws.
There are two reasons for the countries
apparently changing their mind on the issue. Firstly, the Japanese government believe that
there is a lack of fish for fisheries and markets due to the fact that the whales and other
cetaceans are over eating, ignoring completely the reality behind the decrease in fish, human
consumption and greed. The second argument they make is that, since the anti whaling laws
were established 1975, the cetaceans have had ample time to increase their numbers, so anti
whaling laws should be overturned without the guilt of causing extinction. While the main
argument of the film is to prove that the cove existed and massacred dolphins, it also provides
us with the other side of the argument, that is, japans side. It depicts the government’s
secrecy around such issues and their efforts to gain approval from other countries so they can
justify the massacre. As the government also started a programme where secretly the dolphin
meat, filled with mercury, be given as charitable, mandatory lunch to schools, the film crew
67
effectively proved that government conspiracies are a reality. At the end of the film, they
explain that this new policy did not come about due to the evidence the film crew compiled.
It seems the documentary did more than bring about awareness of disgusting issue with
animal cruelty, it stopped the poisoning of thousands of school children, caused the dismissal
of many officials that were interviewed in the film and permanently tarred some of the
fisherman that took part in the annul slaughter.
However, an important issue that needs to be addressed is the comparison between both the
dolphin’s cognitive ability and humans that is made throughout the filming. The dolphin’s
ability to think and communicate in ways similar to human beings is stressed to enhance
viewers respect and compassion for the creatures as sentient beings. They indeed are smart
cetaceans, they can communicate with other cetaceans and now human beings too. They
understand more than we assume they do, as with many animals. The film crew express
throughout the film that because of their intelligence they should not be captive animals, they
deserve much more than being forced to do tricks for audiences. This can be interpreted in
ways that suggest that animals without such abilities don’t deserve the same treatment;
captive zoo animals, that sit in their cages and do nothing but eat and sleep deserve to be
captive. This is a common theory, that non-sentient beings are treated worse simply because
they don’t possess the ability to comprehend the world the same way we do. The definition
of sentient is the “experiencing of sensation or feeling, being conscious” 19. With deeper
thought one comes to the conclusion that every living animal experiences sensation of
19
Found at The Free Dictionary; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentient, 24/08/2013
68
feeling. Elephants mourn the death of their children for years after and ritualize the deaths by
burying the body with leaves and grass. Rats are compassionate towards comrades as found
in a 1958 experiment that forced hungry rats to pull a lever for food which then shocked
another rat. The rats refused to pull the lever proving their compassion for others. Nearly
every species protects their young, understanding that if they are killed they will no longer be
around. How different is this to the human understanding of death? We know that if a
person dies, they are not coming back. No person can say for sure what happens after,
whether there is an afterlife, whether the person reincarnates, it is all belief. Is it even
possible to know whether other animals have beliefs? Due to this, is it also possible that
every animal is sentient, capable of understanding more than humans think? In fact, it has
already been proved, by none other than the pigeon. In 1947 a psychiatrist named Skinner
published a study that showed how pigeons are susceptible to the human characteristic of
superstition. His experiment used hungry pigeons, around half the size of well fed, healthy
ones. Every so often throughout the day a mechanism fed the pigeons. This resulted in the
pigeons behaving in a superstitious manner, believing that if they acted a certain way, food
would appear. Each bird behaved differently; one spun in circles two or three times, others
nodded their heads and some moved their heads in a ‘pendulum’ fashion 20. What this proved
is that pigeons could be conditioned to feel superstitious, like humans, where some believe
that walking under ladders, or opening an umbrella indoors can bring about bad luck. This
behaviour certainly proves that pigeons are also sentient beings, so it is possible to deduce
that all birds are similarly sentient.
20
Information found at Psychologist World; http://www.psychologistworld.com/superstition.php, 22/08/2013
69
Due to ‘The Cove’ treating dolphins as superior animals, it raises questions about the
treatment of other animals. Indeed, it is unethical to massacre and capture dolphins to be
eaten or trained, but it is just as unethical to kill rabbits and foxes for their fur, to test
cosmetics and pharmaceutical on primates and to slaughter millions of farm animals in order
to sustain the ever growing, greedy populations.
70
Chapter Three
Crushing Insights into Animal Cruelty
We have looked at animal cruelty of a secretive manner in film and documentaries,
which has portrayed the lack of care and compassion towards them, whilst being somewhat
hidden from audiences; unless you look for the cruelty, you won’t find it. However, there is
another end to this diverse field of misfortune for animals in filmed media, namely the Crush
film. These are “amateur, sadistic/fetishistic pseudo-pornographic” (Malamud, n.d.) films
depicting scantily clad women in heels literally crushing small
animals, showing the depths to which human depravity is capable of.
Though the beginning of this fetish is hard to pinpoint (although
Jeremy Biles says “The advent of the crush freak phenomenon can
be traced to the 1960’s” (Biles, 2004)), it has certainly progressed,
Figure 15: All crush films kill and
mutilate small animals, whether it’s
small spiders and worms or cats and
dogs.
from the crushing of earthworms to the skinning, burning, stomping
and stabbing of small animals.
While it is understandable (not
agreeable) that animals have been utilized in most aspects of our lives
from food and clothing to medication and companions as house pets, it is wholly disturbing
that the torture and killing of animals (most of which are common house pets) has come to
the point of sexual arousal and release for some of the human population. It illustrates not
only a sadistic tendency, but a frighteningly horrific aspect of the human psyche. Where
once we saw bestiality (sexual encounters between a human and an animal) as disturbing and
perplexing, it has become something of a frequently acted out taboo, lessoning the impact it
once had on us. Even in the nineties and earlier, it was difficult to conduct studies on the
subject because it carried such social stigma and thus was generally kept secret by those who
71
engaged in the act. Yet since then the internet has had a huge influence on the animal
pornography and all that is needed to find such material online is to type ‘animal
pornography’ into Google and 78,000,000 results are found in .19 seconds, each site
accompanied by videos or pictures. Now however, it seems we have developed to the point
of being aroused by the sight of animals being tortured and slaughtered, exemplifying the
extent to which our sadistic psyches are capable.
What’s more perplexing is the identification process for the viewer of these callous films.
Jeremy Biles looks at this process in “I, Insect, or Bataille and the Crush Freaks” (Biles,
2004). He says
“The crush freak typically fantasizes identification with the insect as he or she
masturbates, and savors the sense of sudden, explosive mutilation attendant
upon the sight of the pedal extrusions.”
He goes on to describe how Jeff Vilencia, a spokesperson and director of such films, feels at
the sight of animals being squashed:
“At the point of orgasm, in my mind all of my guts are being squished out. My
eyeballs are popping out, my brain comes shooting out the top of my head, all
my blood squirts everywhere . . . What a release, that imagery really gets me
off! Seeing that foot coming down on me, coming into my stomach and
pressing all that weight on to me till I burst! Wow!” (Biles, 2004)
Who would have thought crush films could get any more confounding, not only do viewers
get aroused by the sight, the thought that it could be them instead of the animals being
tortured makes the experience explosive. And yet, it is not the human being that is being
stamped on, that has heels pushed into their eyes or their skin ripped from their body, its
animals, who have no say or rights.
72
Even more harrowing is the correlation between animal abuse and violence towards people. Violence
towards animals has been recognized as an indication of a dangerous psychopathy that does not
confine itself to animal abuse, as Dr Albert Schweitzer says that
“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as
worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives” (PETA,
2013).
In what is known as the ‘Criminal Triad’, a trio of traits that supposedly predicate violent behaviour,
animal abuse is one of the traits that suggest violence towards people is a possible transition. Along
with bedwetting and fire starting, animal abuse has been a constant factor in the youthful actions of
many infamous serial killers. Albert Disalvo, also named the Boston Strangler, trapped dogs and cats
as a child and shot them with arrows. Jeffrey Dahmer admitted to first watching his father mutilate
animals, who in turn thought it was commendable scientific curiosity and encouraged his son’s
behaviour.
Dahmer gained intense interest in dismembering the animals himself. He went on to
become one of the world’s most infamous cannibal serial killers with over 16 victims. Ed Kemper
killed neighbourhood cats and put their heads on poles. He also killed and dismembered his own cat,
something he went on to do to his own mother. Andrew Cunanan, famous for killing the designer
Versaci, but who also killed five other people, admitted to setting fire to crabs as a child and watching
their eyes melt in their heads. What’s apparent about these cases is that nearly all involve what is
known as ‘good animals’21i.e. animals that provoke human compassion and protection, or house pets
(Merz-Perez & M. Heide, 2004). According to Merz-Perez and Heide, the killing of good animals is
important to the correlation between animal abuse and human violence, which does not endorse the
compartmentalization of human compassion with regard to animals, however, humans who are cruel
to good animals “clearly betray the standards of behaviour that measure and define our very
21
‘Good Animals’ are commonly house pets, reported by Linda Merz-Perez and Kathleen M. Heide, in “Animal
cruelty: Pathway to Violence against People”
73
humanity” (Merz-Perez & M. Heide, 2004). Considering all of the animals used in crush films are
good animals it implies the depraved nature of both the producers and viewers of such videos.
A Criminal Connotation
Why is animal cruelty so common among serial killers? This idea is examined by William
Harmening who suggests the answer can be (somewhat) explained in Freudian terms (Harmening,
2010). The child/adolescent relieves anxiety through the defence mechanism of displacement; the
redirection of aggression and anxiety to a separate target. This is a symbolic act usually suggestive of
a desire to either kill the parents or the child itself. They, like the crush freak, identify with the
animal. It has also been theorized that Jeffrey Dahmer masturbated over the corpses of the animals he
had killed, something he openly admitted to doing with his human victims. Christopher Berry-Dee,
author and interviewer of violent criminals, wrote
“As Jeffrey progressed through childhood, he became more and more fascinated by
dead animals. He would collect road kill from along the highway and take creatures
home to experiment on, enthralled by their passivity. The sight and touch of
glistening viscera was a source of arousal for the disturbed youngster. When Jeffrey
discovered that he was homosexual, images of naked men fused in his mind with
these disturbing images of death and destruction” (Berry-Dee & Morris, 2006)
This link that connects his youthful behaviour to his adult depravities is through what is called the
graduation theory. This is the thought that conditioning certain behaviours causes progression. In
Dahmers case, killing and mutilating animals eased the path to killing people, and masturbating over
the corpse was the constant that followed his actions.
There have been countless studies on this link or graduation hypobook concerning violent offenders.
An Australian research team22 brought together international experts from seven countries to examine
Article “Developmental animal cruelty and its correlates in sexual homicide offenders and sex offenders”
found at http://eprints.port.ac.uk/5845/
22
74
in detail the relationships between animal abuse and child abuse, the emotional development of the
child, family violence, and serial murder (Linzey, 2009). Their research found that sexual homicide
offenders reported greater developmental animal cruelty than the sex offenders who did not kill, thus
supporting the graduation theory. It concluded that animal cruelty in childhood and adolescence is
associated with many antisocial behaviours, but a history of animal cruelty is not exclusive to serial
killers and can, therefore, not be regarded as a sole predicator of serial killing (Linzey, 2009).
Another group of American researchers, Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke (Levin, Jack; Arluke, Arnold;,
2008) found that 73% of forty four sadistic serial killers had killed or harmed animals. They propose
that cruelty to animals, especially good animals, can indeed be seen as a predicator of later sadistic
killings of people. Linzey concludes, however, that
“Whether animal abuse is only a partial indicator or a predicator when only some
species of animal are involved, it seems clear that it is a significant factor in assessing
future dangerousness, including the possibility of serial killing” (Linzey, 2009)
What is apparent from research in this area is that cruelty to animals from a young age,
whether a predicator or not, is certainly connected to a sadistic human psyche. Considering
that most animals used in crush films are good animals, and that they consist of frighteningly
sadistic behaviour towards animals, it is evident that the producers and viewers of such films
are indeed sadistic, violent offenders with inclinations towards anti social behaviour.
And
yet, this is not the only reason I argue against the creation of crush films, the added link
connecting animal abuse to human violence indeed develops my position, however, that point
weighs nothing compared to the depravity of filming the torture of helpless animals simply
for sexual gratification. The degeneracy of the human population yet again falls to an all
time low concerning the use and abuse of the animal kingdom.
75
Chapter Four
The Crushers
There have been steps taken in recent years to decrease these acts of horrific cruelty
towards animals. In 2010 President Obama signed the first law banning the creation of such
films. The legislation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling this year striking down a broader
congressional law dealing with animal cruelty. The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act criminalizes
the creation, sale, and marketing of these videos, which officials had labelled obscene. Penalties of up
to seven years in prison and large fines will be possible if caught. The first offenders to be arrested
for violating this law were Brent Wayne Justice and Ashley Nicole Richards. Not only had the
couple been making the films for several years, they had also been selling the videos
internationally.
This affected the trial as the law against such acts only concerned
distribution and production in America. After their arrest, Richards admitted to mutilating
and killing at least two animals a day over the period of a few years (Rizzotti, 2012). The
couple faced up to forty five years in prison each alongside a $1.75 million fine, and with
proof of eight videos PETA were confident they would get the sentence they deserved;
“We feel very confident that the case is in good hands and the evidence is
strong. It used to be challenging to track internet offenders down, and as a
result, not many could be prosecuted, but that's changing. With our
sophisticated strategies and valuable resources, violent offenders can now be
charged for animal cruelty” (Rizzotti, 2012)
However, in a turn of events that were unpredicted, the couple did not receive punishment.
To be punishable, the law requires a finding of obscenity. The federal judge ruled that the
charges against Richards and Justice violate the First Amendment because no such obscenity
is found in the videos. According to the article, for there to be obscenity, the videos must
“portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.” (Vessely, 2013) The judge in this case
76
determined that “the acts depicted in animal crush videos may be ‘patently offensive’ under
community standards, but under no set of community standards does violence toward animals
constitute ‘sexual conduct.’” (Vessely, 2013) Although the couple weren’t charged for the
production of the videos, they are still in custody awaiting trial on animal abuse charges.
An even more disturbing case of animal crush video production connects to the previous
chapter on the link between animal abuse and human violence. Luca Rocco Magnotta, a
Canadian low budget porn actor, wanted in over 100 countries for fraud, portrayed his violent
tendencies when he filmed himself vacuum packing kittens in a bag and posting it online on
28th of November 2011 (Relative, 2013). Soon after, pictures were uploaded showing him in
intimate sexual positions with the dead kittens. He progressed to feeding a live kitten to a
white python and taping another small kitten’s feet to its body before dropping it in a bath
filled with water. He filmed all incidents and uploaded them to the internet. Conforming to
the Graduation hypobook, Magnotta went on to upload a snuff film, where he killed his
roommate with an ice pick and kitchen knife, masturbated with the body and proceeded to eat
the dead man. Magnotta was on the run from authorities with a $5000 reward for information
leading to his arrest but was found in Germany and brought back to Canada for trial (news,
2013).
What Magnotta’s case teaches us is the direct correlation between animal abuse and human
violence. Similar to Dahmer, Magnotta also graduated to human beings while keeping the
sexual element present in both early incidents of animal cruelty and the later murder of his
77
roommate. Both saw the lives of animals as worthless and so developed to view the human
life in a similar fashion.
In 2006, however, an online video that circulated in China portraying a young girl crushing a
kitten as an advertisement for a crush fetish website (now disabled) “fundamentally changed
the internet” (Terrior, 2013). The video which could be
seen on YouTube caused public outcry and caused the
search for the producers of the animal snuff film. Citizens
were able to find out where the video was taken, as well as
the identities, location and personal information for the
woman depicted crushing the kitten, the camera man who
Figure 16: This is the smiling face of a woman
who has just tortured a cat to death.
shot it, as well as the operator of the website and distributor
of the crush videos for sale. Unfortunately as there was no
real crime committed the woman and everyone involved in the creation of the video received
no punishment. The young woman did issue an apology blaming the act on her divorce but
the issue was left unresolved for many.
One man involved was found and interviewed by a citizen who felt justice had not been
served (Merz-Perez & M. Heide, 2004). In the interview the man admitted to disliking the
mistreatment of the cat but having earned approximately $325 for it, he felt it was worth it.
When asked whether he would do it again he replied “I wouldn’t do it”23. After the media
coverage on the original video began and the people involved were found, this man admits
23
Interview found at: http://sinopathic.com/interview-with-the-kitten-killers-part-2-the-supreme-testamentto-the-power-of-women/
78
that he received death threats and explicit post from people, but above all, he received letters
from people wishing to purchase other videos of the same nature. When asked what kind of
people purchased and watched crush videos he replied
“Don’t be supposing that these people are very different from yourself: these
people are government officials, businessmen, people who have it all. These
are normal people you encounter throughout daily life” (Merz-Perez & M.
Heide, 2004)
Just like many serial killers, who can live in plain sight and adapt to normal routines, these
sadistic fetishists are indeed people who are encountered in everyday life. And due to the lax
laws concerning the creation of such films, they will continue to live among those of us who
find this wholly disturbing.
79
Chapter five
A Callous Conclusion
Evidently, the animal kingdom is suffering at the hands of filmed media. As a
culture, it affects every part of daily life from advertisements to television shows and animals
are an integral part of this mechanism. As Part One explains; animals will always be a
fascination to the human population. We will never fully understand them and because of
this they are puzzling and mysterious. We are constantly bombarded with images of animals
doing amazing things, by human standards that is, i.e. anthropomorphised actions. Human
actions like walking upright (seen in many films and T.V. advertisements), wearing clothes,
playing games (like the oil paintings by C.M Coolidge portraying dogs playing poker) and
dealing with human issues (like ‘Stuart Little’ (Stuart Little, 1999)). Images like these will
never grow old with audiences and so due to this, we need to seriously assess both animal’s
rights in filmed media and the affect we as humans have on them in this sub culture.
At the beginning of my research I had intended on finding accurate accounts of animal
exploitation in our visual culture, which I had assumed was rare since I had not heard about it
before this year. As I have proved this is not an uncommon aspect of filming, be that in
motion pictures, documentaries or pornography. It is largely due to these three mediums that
the real animal has been killed, replaced with the false animal; anthropomorphised and
artificial. It is important for us to have as little impact on the animal kingdom as possible, in
order for different species to evolve and survive. As is well known, the endangered Bee
pollinates much of our food supply, and without them we may not survive. The Bee is a tiny
80
creature but has a massive impact on our survival, and yet they are dying out. Many other
species are also endangered due to human intervention. We are doing the opposite of what is
needed to co-exist with the animal kingdom.
In researching the many ways in which visual media itself has had an impact on non-human
species, Crush films have certainly gained the award for most depraved action towards
animals. While a lot can be said about the treatment of animal actors and the useless work of
the AHA, nothing compares to the hideous mutilation of animals for sexual gratification.
Even without the Ethical Arithmetic from Part One, it is evident that it is unethical and
immoral. As I have suggested, people who participate in these type of films have more in
common with violent sadistic offenders than the rest of the human population, but without
direct laws concerning the creation, distribution and ownership of such films, this industry
will continue to grow.
Throughout this book I have outline two types of cruelty towards animals, passive cruelty
(the work of the AHA qualifies as passive cruelty) and active cruelty (crush films and some
motion pictures). While passive cruelty involves acts of omission and neglect, active cruelty
is the deliberate infliction of animals. So what drives people to inflict harm onto animals?
This answer is somewhat explained by Simon Baron-Cohen in his book “The Science of Evil:
On Empathy and the Origin of Cruelty” (Baron-Cohen, 2011). In it, Cohen attempts to
understand the erosion of empathy and its connection to violence. He explains one particular
example of human cruelty that took place during World War 2. Some of Cohen’s older
family were held in concentration camps and told a story of a woman who had her hands
81
sawed off and sewn back on palms facing up. This is only one example of the many horrors
of human cruelty that took place in concentration camps but goes a long way at explaining
the erosion of empathy. The scientists and doctors that undertook such horrors lost sight of
the humanity in their subjects, mostly due to Nazi laws that stated Jews were genetically Subhuman (Baron-Cohen, 2011).
Like animals that are considered non-human, Jews were
viewed as objects and less than human because of this categorisation. The doctors/scientists
lost empathy toward these people and so may have considered the research was ethical and
contributed to the greater good. He says “When you treat someone as an object, your
empathy has been turned off” (Baron-Cohen, 2011). However, to truly understand the
erosion of empathy, it is important to first understand empathy itself.
Cohen forms a
definition of empathy:
“Empathy is our ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling
and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion”
(Baron-Cohen, 2011)
This suggests that there are two stages to empathy; recognition and response. Cohen argues
that both are essential because if you have the first without the latter then you haven’t
empathized at all. He also says that the consequence of having Zero Degree empathy (0 on
the Empathy Quotient, a 10 question test that measures a person’s empathy) believe a
hundred percent in the “rightness of their own ideas and beliefs” (Baron-Cohen, 2011).
Although Cohen is speaking directly of human empathy, his research still stands when used
to understand human empathy and animal cruelty. In regards to Part One and the work of the
AHA, empathy plays a role in the treatment of the animal actors as the people who put
animals in dangerous positions don’t take into consideration the feelings and emotions of the
animal involved. Although the cruelty in this case is passive, it still portrays the lack of
empathy towards the animals but not quite the zero degree level that we see taking place in
the production of Crush films in Part Two. In this case the creators of such films don’t
82
identify with what the animals are feeling nor do they respond with an appropriate emotion;
see figure 16 where a woman smiles as she lifts up a cat that she has just killed and ironically
makes the peace gesture with her other hand, portraying the lack of empathy she has for the
cat.
Understanding is the key to helping animal rights and welfare. As argued previously, many
people view non-human animals as not having a consciousness, unless they are extremely
clever, like dolphins. As Jeremy Bentham wrote to know the ethical status of animals we
need not ask whether they can speak, but whether or not they can suffer. However, I find it
hard to believe that anybody considered animals void of suffering; they scream when in pain,
just like us, cry and moan when sad, just like us and tremble when afraid, just like us. Does
this not prove conscious experiences? Consider the rabbit for a moment, a small, fluffy and
simple creature that we see living in cages and hutches. We don’t assume that they have
conscious experiences because we don’t see much.
Conversely, they are not simple
creatures, rather expressive, energetic animals that, if allowed, will show you exactly how
they feel. When happy and let out of their cages/hutches they will jump in the air, run in
circles and hop about to express this happiness. When afraid, they thump their feet and
cower, sometimes hiding. When sad, they appear melancholy. How different is this to
people? When some experience the rabbits happy jumping and running, they can misinterpret it as hostile behaviour though, so understanding is imperative when trying explain
the behaviours of animals. Without understanding, we cannot attempt to help the welfare of
animals as people will always try to argue that they are not sentient beings worth this
consideration.
83
My hope for this book is to both enlighten people as to the sentience of animals and their
right to be treated with respect and also to reveal the effect filmed media has had on animals.
When we see the ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ slogan we assume that this is the case,
however, I hope I have proved that it is anything but. We all need to be aware of what we are
watching and how it was made. If we can take a stand against films that do indeed harm
animals, it may help to change the welfare of animal actors. We may one day be able to
watch a film without the thought of animal cruelty crossing our minds. It is wholly possible
to get information on a particular film before watching it if you are worried about the welfare
of animals involved, by contacting PETA who are always willing to help. All I ask is for
people to be aware.
84
Bibliography
101 Dalmatians. 1996. [Film] Directed by Stephen Herek. s.l.: s.n.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. 2012. [Film] Directed by Timur Bekmambetov. s.l.: s.n.
AHA, n.d. americanhumane.org. [Online]
Available at: http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/animals/pa-film-guidelines.pdf
[Accessed 13 05 2013].
America, R., 2013. Topsy The Elephant. [Online]
Available at: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/3641
[Accessed 23 Feb 2010].
Anchorman: The legend of Ron Burgandy. 2004. [Film] Directed by Adam McKay. s.l.: s.n.
Anon., 2012. The Tangled Tale of Topsy The Elephant. [Online]
Available at: http://footnotables.blogspot.ie/2010/01/tangled-tale-of-topsy-elephant.html
[Accessed 14 05 2013].
Arbeiter, M., 2012. Peter Jackson and the AHA address animal death reports surrounding 'The
Hobbit'. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/44586490/peter-jackson-and-the-ahaaddress-animal-death-reports-surrounding-the-hobbit?page=all
[Accessed 17 05 2013].
Arctic Tale. 2007. [Film] Directed by Adam Ravetch. s.l.: s.n.
Avatar. 2009. [Film] Directed by James Cameron. s.l.: s.n.
Baron-Cohen, S., 2011. The Science of Evil:. s.l.:Basic Books.
Beethoven. 1992. [Film] Directed by Brian Levant. s.l.: s.n.
Berger, J., 2000. Why look at Animals?. s.l.:Penguine.
Berhaupt, N. A., 2012. ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ proves technology can replace live animal
actors. [Online]
Available at: http://blog.timesunion.com/animalrights/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes/3647/
[Accessed 13 05 2013].
Berry-Dee, C. & Morris, S., 2006. Born Killers. s.l.:John Blake Publishing Ldt.
Biles, J., 2004. I, Insect, or Bataillle and The Crush Freaks. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory .
Bodner, P., 2011. Animal Safety on Movie Sets Still a Concern. [Online]
Available at: http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/animal-safety-on-movie-sets-still-aconcern-130814933/114587.html
[Accessed 23 11 2012].
85
Burt, J., 2002. Animals in Film. s.l.:Reaktion Books.
Cannibal Holocaust. 1980. [Film] Directed by Ruggero Deodata. s.l.: s.n.
Cass, S. M. N., 2004. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cooke, S. V. G., 2012. 27 Animals Die During Making of The Hobbit, Says Handlers. [Online]
Available at: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/19/27-animals-died-during-making-of-the-hobbitsay-handlers/
[Accessed 16 05 2013].
Cruelty on Film. 1982. [Film] Directed by FifthEstate. s.l.: s.n.
Curious George. 2006. [Film] Directed by Matthew O Callighan. s.l.: s.n.
Davis, L., 2007. 5 horror movies so gruesome, the makers were investigated for cruelty and murder.
[Online]
Available at: http://io9.com/5955517/5-horror-movies-so-gruesome-the-makers-were-investigatedfor-cruelty-and-murder
[Accessed 01 03 2013].
Dawkins, M. S., 2012. Why Animals Matter: Animal conscious, Animal Welfare and Human Wellbeing. s.l.:Oxford Universtiy Press.
Didymus, J. T., 2013. Digital Journal.com. [Online]
Available at: http://digitaljournal.com/article/351217
[Accessed 9 August 2013].
Doctor Doolittle. 1998. [Film] Directed by Betty Thomas. s.l.: s.n.
Earthlings. 2005. [Film] Directed by Shaun Monson. USA: Maggie Q.
Edel, R., 2012. American Humane Association Responds to Animal Deaths on “The Hobbit”. [Online]
Available at: http://blog.northjersey.com/jerseydog/7792/aha-responds-to-animal-deaths-on-thehobbit/
[Accessed 17 05 2013].
Electrocuting an elephant. 1903. [Film] Directed by Thomas Edison. s.l.: s.n.
Every Which Way But Loose. 1978. [Film] Directed by James Fargo. s.l.: s.n.
Felix The Cat. 1989. [Film] Directed by Tibor Hernádi. s.l.: s.n.
FifthEstate, 2013. Cruel Camera: Cruelty on Film. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/cruelcamera/cruelty.html
[Accessed 28 05 2013].
Gardner, E., 2011. 'The King's Speech' Threatened With Legal Action Over 'No Animals Harmed'
Claim. [Online]
86
Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/kings-speech-threatened-legalaction-96849
[Accessed 15 05 2013].
Harell, A., 2009. Earthlings: An Animal Rights Documentary That Preaches To The Choir, But Fails To
Advance The Cause. [Online]
Available at: http://www.foodiebuddha.com/2009/07/13/earthlings-an-animal-rights-documentarythat-preaches-to-the-choir-but-fails-to-advance-the-cause-guest-blogger/
[Accessed 13 08 2013].
Harmening, W. M., 2010. The Criminal Triad: Psychosocial Development of the Criminal Personality
Type. s.l.:Charles C Thomas Publishers.
Humphrys, M., 1995. Killings for Christianity. [Online]
Available at: Markhumphrys.com/christianities.killings.html
[Accessed 26 02 2013].
Jaws. 1975. [Film] Directed by Steven Spielberg. s.l.: s.n.
Jesse James. 1939. [Film] Directed by Henry King. s.l.: s.n.
Killing Lincoln. 2013. [Film] Directed by Adrian Moat. s.l.: s.n.
King Kong. 1976. [Film] Directed by John Guillermin. s.l.: s.n.
Lassie. 1994. [Film] Directed by Danie Petrie. s.l.: s.n.
Levin, Jack; Arluke, Arnold;, 2008. Reducing the False Positive Problem: A Study of Animal Abuse and
Serial Murder. [Online]
Available at:
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/1/5/9/p261594_index.htm
l?phpsessid=a691c637c237165780bfe9299829f29d
[Accessed 2013 08 2013].
Linzey, A., 2009. The Link Between Animal Abuse and HUman Violence. s.l.:Sussex Academic Press.
Little Fugitive. 2006. [Film] Directed by Joanna Lipper. s.l.: s.n.
Lone Ranger. 2013. [Film] Directed by Gore Verbinski. s.l.: s.n.
MacKinnan, B., 2010. Ethics. Concise Edition ed. s.l.:Congage Learning.
Magic Mike. 2012. [Film] Directed by Steven Soderbergh. s.l.: s.n.
Malamud, R., 2010. Animals on Film: The Ethics of The Human Gaze.
s.l.:www.english.gsu.edu/pdf/Spring.pdf.
Malamud, R., 2011. A Cultural History of Animals in The Modern Age. s.l.:Bloomsbury Academic.
Malamud, R., n.d. Animals in Film: The Ethics of The Human Gaze. s.l.:s.n.
87
March of the Penguins. 2005. [Film] Directed by Luc Jacquet. s.l.: s.n.
Mendick, R., 2011. BBC accused of routine 'fakery' in wildlife documentaries. [Online]
Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8963053/BBC-accused-of-routinefakery-in-wildlife-documentaries.html
[Accessed 05 08 2013].
Mermaids; The Body Found. 2011. [Film] Directed by Sid Bennett. s.l.: Darlow Smithson Productions.
Merz-Perez, L. & M. Heide, K., 2004. Animal Cruelty; Pathway to Violence Against People. Oxford:
AltaMiria Press.
Mizuta, A., 2002. The Death of An Animal. Film Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 09-22.
Newkirk, I., 2012. The Hobbit Movie is no Fantasy for Animals. [Online]
Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-hobbit-movie-is-no-fantasy-foranimals-8411487.html
[Accessed 16 05 2013].
news, C., 2013. Luka Magnotta's lawyers want public banned from hearing. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/luka-magnotta-s-lawyers-want-public-banned-fromhearing-1.1190495
[Accessed 31 015 2013].
Panaman, R., 2008. How To Do Animal Rigts. [Online]
Available at: http://www.animalethics.org.uk/aquinas-thomas.html
[Accessed 26 02 2013].
PETA, 2013. Human Abuse linked to Cruelty to Animals. [Online]
Available at: http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/human-animal-abuse.aspx
[Accessed 2013 08 30].
Pirates of the Caribbean. 2003. [Film] Directed by Gore Verbinski. s.l.: s.n.
Race to Space. 2001. [Film] Directed by Sean McNamara. s.l.: s.n.
Relative, S., 2013. Alleged Canadian Cannibal Killer in France Dressed as a Woman?. [Online]
Available at: http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-canadian-cannibal-killer-france-dressed-woman194400287.html
[Accessed 30 08 2013].
Rizzotti, A., 2012. Animal Crush Videos: Inside the Sich, Sadistic subculture. [Online]
Available at: http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/12/03/animal-crush-videos-what-happenedcute-baby-animals
[Accessed 31 08 2013].
Robertson, J. C., 1993. The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action 1913-1975.
s.l.:Routledge.
Scruton, R., 2000. Animal Righsta and Wrongs. Britian: Metro Books.
88
SeaBiscuit. 2003. [Film] Directed by Gary Ross. s.l.: s.n.
Singer, P., 1985. The Animal Liberation Movement. s.l.:Old Hammond Press.
Spanish Bullfight. 1900. [Film] Directed by Unknown. s.l.: s.n.
Stuart Little. 1999. [Film] Directed by Rob Minkoff. s.l.: Columbia Pictures Corporation.
Tarzan and his Mate. 1934. [Film] Directed by Cedric Gibbons. s.l.: s.n.
Tarzan and His Mate. 1934. [Film] Directed by Cedric Gibbons. s.l.: s.n.
Tarzan The Ape Man. 1932. [Film] Directed by W. S. Van Dyke.. s.l.: s.n.
Terrior, 2013. Interviewing the Crush Video Industry Part One. [Online]
Available at: http://sinopathic.com/interview-with-the-kitten-killers-part-1-a-bottom-line-formorals/
[Accessed 31 08 2013].
The Adventures of Chatran. 1986. [Film] Directed by Masonori Hata. s.l.: s.n.
The Cove. 2009. [Film] Directed by Louis Psihoyos. s.l.: s.n.
The Cove. 2009. [Film] Directed by Louie Psihoyos. s.l.: s.n.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. 2012. [Film] Directed by Peter Jackson. s.l.: s.n.
The Killing Season. 2013. [Film] Directed by Mark Steven Johnson. s.l.: s.n.
The Kings Speech. 2010. [Film] Directed by Tom Hopper. s.l.: s.n.
The Lord of the Rings. 2001. [Film] Directed by Peter Jackson. s.l.: s.n.
The Planet of the Apes. 2001. [Film] Directed by Tim Burton. s.l.: s.n.
The Planet of The Apes. 2001. [Film] Directed by Tim Burton. s.l.: s.n.
The Rise of The Planet of The Apes. 2011. [Film] Directed by Rupert Wyatt. s.l.: s.n.
Verrier, R., 2012. PETA calls for probe into alleged animal abuse on film sets. [Online]
Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/11/entertainment/la-et-ct-onlocation-20120911
[Accessed 17 05 2013].
Vessely, S., 2013. Animal Curshing: What it is and Why we Have to Look. [Online]
Available at: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/05/animal-crushing-what-it-is-why-we-have-tolook-stephanie-vessely/
[Accessed 31 08 2013].
Warren, P., 2011. Wildlife Film-Making:Looking Into the Future. Illustrated ed. s.l.:Wildeye.
Water for Elephants. 2011. [Film] Directed by Francis Lawrence. s.l.: s.n.
White Wilderness. 1958. [Film] Directed by James Algar. s.l.: s.n.
89
Wilson, S. L., 2007. Animals Movie Guide. s.l.:Staci Wilson.
Wrath of The Titans. 2012. [Film] Directed by Jonathan Liebesman. s.l.: s.n.
Zelman, J., 2011. 'Water for Elephants' Animal Abuse Allegedly Revealed in Undercover Video.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/water-for-elephants-animal-abusevideo_n_860792.html
[Accessed 03 03 2013].
90
Appendix
Letter 1:
September 10, 2012
Eric V. Bruner, Chair
Mabel McKinney-Browning, Ed.D., Vice Chair Michael A. Steinig, Esq., Secretary
Board of Directors
American Humane Association
1400 16th St. N.W., Ste. 360
Washington, DC 20036
Via U.S. Postal Service and e-mail: mabel.mckinneybrowning@americanbar.org;
michael.steinig@pillsburylaw.com
Dear Mr. Bruner and AHA Board Members:
I am writing to express deep concern about alleged problems with oversight on the sets of film
and television productions that use animals. As it is the American Humane Association's (AHA)
role to monitor the use of animals on set, for which AHA is funded by the Industry Advancement
and Cooperative Fund and private donors, we urge you to initiate a thorough and independent
investigation of these allegations. If they prove to be valid, we ask that you take immediate steps
to correct any problems and circumstances that allowed them to occur.
PETA has for years received whistleblower reports alleging animal abuse on sets, but following
our release of leaked information about the mistreatment and deaths of horses on HBO's Luck and
the subsequent cancellation of the program, we received an unprecedented number of reports
concerning more than a dozen film and television projects, four of which are in production right
now. All these allegations suggest that problems could have been avoided with adequate
oversight by the AHA. In some cases, it is alleged that AHA management looked the other way
or was even complicit in arranging for the filming of sequences that were potentially dangerous
for animals. Each film and the specific allegations surrounding it is listed below. I have noted
where additional evidence was provided, and I have attached that evidence.
Many, though not all, of the allegations involve the AHA's Karen Rosa, who has been overseeing
the AHA's film unit. According to the reports we have received, some people on the sets of some
films believe that AHA representatives have not received the support needed from Ms. Rosa to
ensure the safety of animals. Specific allegations are below, but in general, Ms. Rosa has
allegedly refused to back the recommendations of the AHA representatives on set and has thus
allowed situations that put animals in jeopardy. Others allege that AHA representatives
inexperienced with the species of animals being used have been assigned to productions because
they are inexperienced and won't make filming difficult while more experienced representatives
have been removed.
91
We understand that Ms. Rosa will soon be removed from her position, but based on what we have
been told, it does not appear that this will mean an end to the oversight problems. Whistleblowers
allege that Ms. Rosa is a reflection of a pervasive culture at AHA in which "relationship building"
with producers and directors has become more important than effective oversight.
At least one of the allegations involves AHA President Robin Ganzert, and some whistleblowers
have reported that orders from Ms. Ganzert direct AHA staff, including Ms. Rosa, not to "make
waves" or cause tension between the AHA and certain directors and production companies. This
is particularly problematic as we are told that trainers and wranglers hired by production
companies rely on AHA representatives to prohibit dangerous conditions. Some trainers don't
wish to raise objections to producers in this competitive business—even if they are invited to do
so by producers—so they voice their concerns to AHA reps who, we are told, have in the past
made these concerns known and have thus protected animals. It has been alleged that some
directors and producers have been entirely unaware of the potential danger of some scenes
because AHA reps were allegedly instructed by their supervisors not to discuss the trainers'
concerns. Similarly, it is alleged that production companies have not been made aware that
animal suppliers hired for their films have a history of animal welfare violations.
Whistleblowers allege that the AHA film ratings are not reliable. We have been told that the
ratings of some films do not reflect what occurred on set, that acceptable ratings have been given
when not all animal action was monitored, and that ratings were changed when the AHA feared
that information about problems on the set would be leaked.
Not all the alleged incidents resulted in death or injury, though some apparently did. What all the
allegations do convey is that animals, as well as actors, have apparently been put at risk and that
these risks could have been prevented.
Here are specific allegations:
The Killing Season (in production; projected release date 2013; Millennium Films and Corsan
Pictures; directed by Mark Steven Johnson; starring Robert De Niro and John Travolta): The
production company did not want an AHA rep on the set for the filming of scenes in which elk
are supposed to fight. Karen Rosa informed the AHA rep on set that she wanted to contact
producers and the Screen Actors Guild to lodge a complaint but was overruled by Robin Ganzert.
One reason given was that if animals were injured with an AHA rep present, doing nothing, it
would be "not a good position to be in." The AHA rep was also concerned that the supplier of the
animals, a wildlife facility registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has a record of
violations for inadequate housing and veterinary care, thus making the AHA's presence on the set
during the elk fight scene particularly important. Five screen shots of what appear to be e-mails
from AHA staff seem to support these allegations (the screen shots are attached).
Killing Lincoln (in production for National Geographic Channel, based on the book by Bill
O'Reilly; projected release date 2013; Scott Free Productions; directed by Adrian Moat; starring
Billy Campbell and Jesse Johnson): A dangerous scene was filmed in which a horse, with an
actor in the saddle, was forced to gallop across a narrow bridge with water, rocks, and logs
beneath. The bridge had no railings or siding, and the scene was filmed at night. Before the scene
was filmed, the AHA rep assigned to the set told Karen Rosa that this was dangerous for both
horse and actor and that the trainer had asked the
92
rep to oppose the filming. Rosa removed this rep from the set and assigned another, lessexperienced rep to the set, and the scene was filmed as planned. An online photograph of the
bridge is attached.
Lone Ranger (in production, projected release date June 28, 2013; Silver Bullet Productions;
directed by Gore Verbinski; starring Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer): The AHA rep who
reviewed the script was concerned about many risky scenes involving animals. The rep's concerns
were not backed by AHA management. One trainer was fired for refusing to cooperate with
producers who wanted the scenes to be shot as planned. In one scene, horses with riders were to
swim across the Colorado River. The first swim took place without incident, but before the swim
back across was filmed, hours later, the river had risen more than a foot because of rainstorms
upriver. One horse and rider swam back without incident, but a second horse and rider were
swept downriver. Fortunately, a production crew was in a pontoon boat downriver. Two men
jumped in to try to grab the horse. Eventually, someone was able to throw a lasso around the
horse's head and pull the horse to the shore.
The Hobbit (in post production, projected release date December 13, 2012; New Line Cinema,
directed by Peter Jackson; starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Elijah Wood): According to a New
Zealand newspaper article, three horses being used in the production died (the article is
attached). One miniature horse was housed with larger, high-strung horses who trampled him. A
second horse was placed in a partially fenced area that bordered a cliff with a sharp drop to a river
below; the horse was found dead at the bottom of the cliff. The third horse died from unexplained
causes, possibly related to feed. The AHA acknowledged the deaths in a public statement and
says that an investigation was conducted. Whistleblowers tell us that the only wrangler on the
set—who was interviewed in the article attached—voiced his concerns to production about the
housing of the horses and was subsequently fired. Others complained to AHA reps, who did not
take action and did not convey all the wranglers' concerns to production.
Boardwalk Empire (HBO TV; created by Terence Winter; starring Steve Buscemi and Kelly
Macdonald): A horse died on the set of this program on June 25, 2012. We understand that the
horse died of a possible heart attack under extremely stressful conditions, including chaotic
activity on the set and an incoming thunderstorm, yet filming was not stopped to allow the horse
to calm down.
Wrath of the Titans (2012; Warner Bros.; directed by Jonathan Liebesman; starring Sam
Worthington and Liam Neeson): A horse died while being transported during this film. Despite
this, the film was giving an "Outstanding" rating by the AHA. The AHA ratings review is
attached as the link appears to have been recently been disabled.
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/wrath-of-the-titans/
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012; Abraham Productions; directed by Timur
Bekmambetov; starring Dominic Cooper, Benjamin Walker, and Rufus Sewell): Horses were
drugged with banamine, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, indicating that they were not
considered fit, and some of the horses used were later sold and shipped for slaughter in Mexico.
The AHA acknowledged in its first review of the film that not all scenes involving animals were
monitored, yet it gave the film an "Outstanding" rating. When PETA heard the allegations of drug
use, we immediately wrote to Robin Ganzert, who responded that the allegations were unfounded
but that the AHA was nevertheless downgrading the rating of the film to "Acceptable" (our letter
is attached). The AHA's current "Acceptable" rating review is attached as the link appears to
have been recently been disabled. http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/abrahamlincoln-vampire-hunter/.
93
Magic Mike (2012; Iron Horse Entertainment; directed by Steven Soderbergh; starring Channing
Tatum and Alex Pettyfer): The AHA acknowledged that not all animal scenes were monitored,
but it nevertheless rated the film "Outstanding." The AHA ratings review is attached as the link
appears to have been recently been disabled.
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/movie-review-magic-mike/
Moonrise Kingdom (2012; Indian Paintbrush; directed by Wes Anderson; starring Jared Gilman,
Kara Hayward, and Bruce Willis): An underage kitten was used on the set, in violation of AHA
guidelines and possibly state law. A screenshot of what appear to be AHA computer notes dated
January 2012 stating that Karen Rosa approved the use of the kitten and mandating that
precautions be taken is attached. Despite this and following the controversy surrounding the
AHA-monitored show Luck, the organization rated the film "Unacceptable" (The AHA ratings
review is attached as the link appears to have been recently been disabled.
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/moonrise-kingdom/) for this very reason, stating:
However, the film has earned a Monitored-Unacceptable rating due to the fact that our Certified
Animal Safety Representative discovered the kitten they were using was underage, per our
Guidelines For The Safe Use of Animals In Filmed Media. Since, the production never notified us as
to which days they were going to use the kitten. American Humane was not able to enforce our
Guidelines for the safe handling of the kitten. This lack of notification, coupled with the
unintentional negligence in using a kitten that was under eight weeks of age, led to our decision
to rate the film Monitored-Unacceptable.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011; Columbia Pictures; directed by David Fincher; starring
Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara): The scene in which the body of a cat was found after being
killed was not monitored as it was filmed in Sweden and the AHA did not want to pay for its rep
to travel. In its review, the AHA acknowledges that the scene was not monitored: "In the scene
where cat is found dead on front porch, production provided documentation." Yet the AHA rated
the film "Outstanding." The AHA ratings review is attached as the link appears to have been
recently been disabled.
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/girl-with-dragon-tattoo/
The Immortals (2011; Relativity Media; directed by Tarsem Singh; starring Luke Evans and
Mickey Rourke): A finch used in the production escaped and was found dead, yet the film was
rated "Outstanding." The AHA ratings review is attached as the link appears to have been
recently been disabled. http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/the-immortals/
The Conspirator (2010; Wildwood Enterprises; directed by Robert Redford; starting Robin
Wright and James McAvoy): The horses supplied by a Savannah, Ga., company were
underweight, lame, improperly shod, improperly harnessed, and housed in filthy, substandard
conditions. Photos of two of the horses are attached. AHA reps on set were concerned but were
instructed not to inform the production company. The same company was hired to supply horses
for the film Savannah (2012; not yet released; Unclaimed Freight Productions; directed by
Annette Haywood-Carter; starring Jim Caviezel), as the production company did not know of
previous problems, and the horses were in similarly poor condition.
94
There Will Be Blood (2007; Paramount Vantage; directed by Paul Thomas Anderson; starring
Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano): Three horses died. Two horses reportedly suffered from colic
and died suddenly of unknown causes. While colic can occur for various reasons, whistleblowers
state that horses were not given adequate water on very hot days (dehydration can cause colic,
and heat is an aggravating factor). Whistleblowers further report that AHA reps discovered
discrepancies between the reports of the horses' age, sex, and breed supplied by the trainer and
the reports supplied by the veterinarian. None of this was reported in the review of the film,
which was rated "Acceptable."
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/archives/movies/mr.php?fid=7881
Failure to Launch (2006; Paramount; directed by Tom Dey; starring Matthew McConaughey
and Sarah Jessica Parker): A chipmunk was killed when a trainer transported him inside his
clothing rather than transferring him to a cage for proper transport. Despite this, the film was
rated "Acceptable."
Pirates of the Caribbean (2003; Walt Disney Pictures; directed by Gore Verbinski; starring
Johnny Depp): Explosions set by production in Wallilabou Bay resulted in the deaths of 46 fish
and 51 squid over a period of four days (a screen shot of what appear to be AHA notes on this is
attached). There is no mention of the deaths in the review and the film was rated "Acceptable."
http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/movie-review-archives/
Please understand that while PETA opposes nearly all uses of animals in film and television, we
take the position that if animals are going to be used, it is vital that their safety and well-being be
of paramount concern and that their use be monitored adequately. As you know, the AHA has the
right to be present whenever animals are on set and to preview scripts and comment when
problematic scenes are planned. If these rights are waived by the AHA, the animals have not been
protected to the greatest extent possible. The result can be injuries and death. Further, production
companies that are relying on the AHA to advise them may be unaware that they are risking the
safety of animals. As PETA is not equipped to take on this role and has no desire to do so, we
urge you to investigate and, where appropriate, take action to correct the situation so that, at the
very least, the AHA's ratings truly represent what actually occurred on the set.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Kathy Guillermo
Senior Vice President
PETA
cc: Industry Advancement and Cooperative Fund, 3601 W. Olive Ave., Burbank, CA 91505-4662
Dr. Robin Ganzert
95
Letter 2:
September 13, 2012
Dr. Robin Ganzert
President and CEO
American Humane Association
Dear Dr. Ganzert,
We regret having to send you this letter. As you are no doubt aware, based on numerous complaints
that PETA has received through the years about the treatment of animals during movie and television
productions, we've urged the American Humane Association (AHA) to improve its system of
monitoring these productions. Most recently, PETA contacted the AHA in response to complaints
about the AHA-monitored film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Since three horses died during the
production of HBO's Luck, numerous complaints have surfaced in reference to several AHAmonitored productions. We believe a complete overhaul of the current monitoring system is in order,
and we've included several suggestions for policy revisions below:

Ban the use of great apes in all productions, and ensure that all films using great apes
against the AHA’s recommendations receive an “Unacceptable” rating.

All AHA animal safety representatives must be experts on the species whose use they are
charged with monitoring. A dog expert should not monitor the use of equines, for
instance. If several species are used, experts familiar with the needs of each species must
be present.

An animal safety representative must be present the entire time an animal is used in a
production in order to grant an AHA rating.

Animal safety representatives should report all animal welfare concerns, throughout all
phases of a project, to the production team in charge, and they must immediately stop
production if they foresee the possibility of harm coming to an animal.

Animal safety representatives must report all incidents of cruelty to animals to local lawenforcement authorities and to the production company.
96

In the standard AHA disclaimer, “No animals were harmed in the making of this film,”
add the following sentence: “Pre-production training and living conditions off-set were
not monitored.”

When a script calls for the use of wild animals, strongly recommend that computergenerated imagery, blue-screen technology, animatronics, or stock footage be used
instead of live animals or that the script be changed when possible. If none of this is
possible, prohibit the use of weapons, such as bullhooks (on elephants), whips and
electrical shock devices.

Because horses are particularly vulnerable, never allow horses to be placed in dangerous
situations. A horse behaviorist and a licensed state humane officer must be present during
all filming, including during transportation to and from the set and from scene to scene,
and must be familiar with AHA guidelines and follow them without fail.

The AHA’s Film & TV Unit should be supervised by an animal behaviorist who has
expertise with both domesticated and wild animals. A veterinarian who is not also a
behaviorist is not sufficient.
There is, of course, much more that can be done to ensure the safety of animals during filming, but
based on the complaints our organization has received, these seem to be the points that require
immediate attention. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these recommendations.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Julia Gallucci, M.S.
Animal Behavior Specialist
PETA
206-898-3653
97
Report 1:
PETA facts sheet
Amazing Animal Productions (Sidney Yost)
USDA License #93-C-0590, 2065 W. College Ave., Apt. 200, San Bernardino, CA 92407
Amazing Animal Productions (formerly known as Amazing Animal Actors) has failed to meet minimal
federal standards for the care of animals used in exhibitions as established in the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure
to have an adequate environmental enhancement plan to promote the psychological well-being of
primates, failure to provide adequate space, exhibiting animals without a valid USDA license, and
failure to handle chimpanzees safely.
A primatologist who investigated Amazing Animal Productions witnessed chimpanzees who were
being beaten in order to make them obedient. Amazing Animal Productions’ chimpanzees have
attacked and bitten at least two children. Sid Yost was fined and incarcerated for possessing a
prohibited species in violation of California state law. A federal grand jury charged Sid Yost with
fraud and making false statements in a bankruptcy-related indictment. Contact PETA for
documentation.
October 21, 2009: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to correct a previously
indentified noncompliance of failing to handle animals in a manner that would ensure minimal risk
of harm to the animal and the public because the facility continued to offer public encounters with
animals, including big cats.
Amazing Animal Productions was also cited for a number of additional non-compliances, including
the following: failure to provide veterinary care to a Great Pyrenees dog who was matted to such an
extent that the inspector determined that the health of the animal could be affected; failure to
provide shelter with sufficient space for hybrid puppies to sit, stand, and lie in a normal manner;
failure to maintain a wood shelter box for hybrids Dakota and Sierra (the box was chewed to the
extent that screws were exposed, posing a risk of injury to the animals); failure to provide a tether
arrangement that would adequately contain an adult cougar (the clasps on the tether had no locking
mechanism, and the tether was in an area without a perimeter fence); failure to provide a perimeter
fence around a chain-link mesh enclosure intended for a cougar; failure to provide ferrets with
sufficient space for adequate freedom of movement; and failure to maintain records documenting a
proper inventory of all animals at the facility. The USDA inspector noted that
Amazing Animal Productions did not have the necessary state permits to possess a fox, five ferrets,
and a prairie dog nor the necessary county permit to house a cougar on the property. It was also
noted that Amazing Animal
Productions provided false information to the USDA regarding the fox by claiming that someone else
held the state permit for the animal.
98
June 10, 2009: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failing to handle animals in a manner
that would ensure minimal risk of harm to the animal and the public during “Animal Workshops,”
“Animal Clinics,” private events, and photo-ops in which members of the public were allowed to
have direct contact with animals, including big cats.
The USDA also cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to provide adequate enclosures and
sufficient space to wolf hybrids who were housed in airline transport crates; failure to properly store
fruit (which was intended to be fed to the animals), some of which was overripe and had flies on it;
failure to provide adequate sanitation in the kitchen area, which was filthy with dirt and food debris
and contaminated with flies and mouse droppings; and failure to notify the USDA of a new location
housing animals.
April 9, 2009: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failing to handle animals in a manner
that would ensure minimal risk of harm to the animal and the public during the April 4, 2009,
appearance at Grizzly Jack’s Grand Bear Resort. At that event, a wolf hybrid attacked and injured a
2½-year-old girl. The wolf hybrid was subsequently euthanized. The USDA also cited Amazing Animal
Productions for failure to provide current health certificates for two wolf hybirds (including the
animal who attacked the girl), a monkey, and two dogs as well as for failure to provide records of
acquistion and disposition for three ferrets, two pigs, and a red fox.
April 4, 2009: According to news reports, a 2½-year-old girl was attacked by a wolf hybrid who was
being displayed by Amazing Animal Productions at Grizzly Jack’s Grand Bear Resort in Utica, Illinois.
As the leashed wolf—who weighed approximately 100 pounds—was led through a curtain and onto
a stage, the animal reportedly lunged at the girl, biting numerous parts of her body, including her
face and neck. The girl was taken by ambulance to a hospital.
The wolf hybrid was euthanized, and the girl’s parents subsequently filed lawsuits against Grand
Bear Resort and
March 18, 2008: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for unsafe handling of a lion during an
appearance on The Tonight Show. The report states, “Licensee exhibited a 7½-month-old lion on a
leash in the presence of the general public, during a taping of The Tonight Show. A leash does not
constitute a barrier, and there is a risk to the safety of the public when a leash is the only restraint in
use.” Amazing Animal Productions was also cited for failing to provide adequate space to a lynx who
was in an enclosure of “inadequate size and design.” The inspector wrote that the enclosure did not
allow the lynx to make “normal postural adjustments, such as standing on rear feet” and that the
animal was “showing signs of stress, such as constant pacing.” The USDA also cited Amazing Animal
Productions for a number of other noncompliances, including the following: failure to provide
adequate shelter to a squirrel whose only protection from the cold was a ventilated airline crate;
failure to provide a sufficient perimeter fence around a tiger enclosure, a red fox enclosure, and a
capuchin monkey enclosure to prevent people and animals outside the fence from having contact
with the animals inside; failure to provide food in a manner that ensures that the food remains
uncontaminated and that animals receive necessary nutrients; failure to provide adequate sanitation
in a squirrel enclosure that had an accumulation of food debris and excreta and a capuchin monkey
99
enclosure with a build-up of food debris; and housing a rabbit and a primate in the same primary
enclosure.
August 29, 2006: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to correct a previously
identified noncompliance of not providing handles or handholds on a chimpanzee transport
enclosure in order to allow the enclosure to be moved easily in case of emergency. Amazing Animal
Productions was also cited for failure to provide adequate veterinary care when it could not provide
documentation that a 6-year-old chimpanzee named Cody was receiving the preventive care
prescribed in the facility’s written program of veterinary care. The inspector wrote, “With a primate,
such as this chimpanzee, many bacteria, viruses, and parasites can be shared with human beings and
vice versa. This chimp is used in exhibition work [in which] it interacts [with] and touches human
beings. Therefore, preventative vaccinations and appropriate diagnostic testing … are essential for
the protection of both the chimp and the humans.” Amazing Animal Productions was also cited for
failure to provide adequate environmental enhancement to a chimpanzee who was housed in
isolation while traveling for several days at a time. The inspector wrote,
“Chimpanzees are typically very active, social animals. Isolation from the rest of the troop for several
days can be detrimental to their well-being, especially when housed in the much smaller primary
enclosure ….”
August 14, 2006: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to provide an adequately
ventilated enclosure to transport chimpanzees, failure to maintain a current written program of
veterinary care, failure to provide a permanent primary enclosure for a tethered dog, and failure to
provide a veterinarian-approved environmental enhancement plan for primates.
July 12, 2005: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to provide enviornmental
enhancement to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. It was unclear if
modifications to the environmental enrichment plan had been approved by the veterinarian, and the
schedule that was provided during the inspection did not reflect the actual enrichment that was
being provided to the animals. The inspector wrote, “Documentation of enrichment is spotty. The
daily log does not contain enrichment information for approximately 40% of the days.”
October 24, 2004: A USDA spokesperson told the Los Angeles Daily News that the agency is
investigating Yost for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
March 3, 2004: The USDA cited Amazing Animal Productions for failure to properly handle
dangerous animals who are used for public exhibition. The inspector wrote, “There is no
documentation of the knowledge and experience of [the] employees to allow for the determination
that they have sufficient knowledge and experience to ensure the safety of the animals and the
public.” The inspector also notified Amazing Animal Productions that it was prohibited
100
Animal Actors have a massive presence in filmed media and yet are rarely
considered when it comes to their welfare. From Motion Pictures that have
neglected animals, to documentaries that have changed our perception of what
animals are and finally, Crush films, each has had an effect on the rights and
welfare of all animals.
With feature films, organisations were established to maintain the welfare of
animals in film, but has they’re presence effected the lives of animals?
How have documentaries changed our view of the animal kingdom?
What are Crush films and how do they influence animals?
In this book I answer each of these questions and explain the many ways in which
animals are exploited for our entertainment. I also attempt to understand both
why animals are harmed and the type of person who would inflict this harm.
101