With John Woo's "Red Cliff" finally slated for a North-American BluRay release (both in the 2.5 hour International Edition AND in the 5.0 hour two-part Original Edition), collectors can start asking the general questions. Will this release be as good as the Hong-Kong BluRay releases? What extras will there be?
But first and foremost: will I be able to watch the whole film or have bits been censored?
When "The Good, the Bad, the Weird" was released in western countries, all bits of animal cruelty had been clipped out, mostly tripped stunt-horses falling in non-rehearsed ways (a practice forbidden in many countries since the Eighties, but still allowed in Asia). There is some discussion on BluRay forums if the English BluRay editions of "Red Cliff" have been censored in this respect too.
Unnecessary cruelty towards animals is not fun, at least not according to most normal humans. Then again most of us aren't exactly vegetarians, nor do we buy the more expensive "animal-friendly" meat from stores, so we are obviously somewhat at ease with it.
Which brings up the following question: do you agree with the practice of censoring animal cruelty out of Asian films? The censoring doesn't actually help the animals which were hurt in a movie, nor will it cause directors to stop hurting other animals in future movies.
Before I share my opinion... I am vegetarian. Have been for almost 5 years now.
Now I will say this. I've seen the worst of the worst animal cruelty videos (ie "Earthlings") so really I am not that bothered whenever I see it in uncensored asian movie torrents. Censoring these parts doesn't do anything but hide the fact that there are no animal rights laws in asia to us already willfully ignorant westerners.
I say show them in completion. Besides the fact that no real film buff likes to watch an incomplete movie, I think that maybe if people saw these scenes (those horse scenes you mention are actually pretty fucking brutal to watch when you check the statistic of how many die making the scenes) and found themselves being disgusted or offended by what they saw, they would speak out against the asian film industries lack of animal rights laws.
You can't just sweep the dirt underneath the rug.
I am no animal rights activist, but I don't think it is necessary to show or use this type of stunt animal in any film. With so many other options available, (ie. CGI, creative editing) it seems exploitative. I really don't think the films lose anything by excising these pieces. Of course, it doesn't address the root problem of using the animals in potentially harmful ways, but one step at a time, I suppose.
I think the obvious answer is that Asian filmmakers should take better care of their animal extras. Then this would be a none issue.
But American films featuring the exact same animal cruelty, mostly old westerns are readily available uncensored in the US so why censor the Asian bits? Is it more cruel now or something? Anyone remember the chicken shooting scene in Pat Garret and Billy the Kid? Those were live chickens they blew the heads off.
@Major_Rager - Well said, couldn't agree more.
I'm not particularly fond of watching animal cruelty in movies, but the films were made legally in the country of origin and therefore if I want to see the film I don't particularly want to watch a film that has been chopped up based on the sensibilities of some unseen third party. Obviously there is some line to be drawn somewhere on what can legally be distributed and shown (such as child porn or snuff) but how does one go about setting laws around showing harm to animals in imported films when harming animals goes on everyday anyway (butchery, sport, medical and cosmetic testing etc) and is part of everyday life.
I don't like unnecessary harm being brought to animals, but then again I'm a hypocrite, as are millions of others, as I still eat meat and I could go vegeterian but choose not to.
The bottom line for me is that this is about censorship within films and hypocritical censoring at that. If it is ok to have billboards showing inhumane treatment of animals for the purpose of highlighting animal rights issues then it should be ok to show animal cruelty in films - unless we are saying that the issue is about how people consume films and what they take away from the message of the film. And if this is the point of banning animal cruelty in films then you have to go one step further and start banning faked animal cruelty if it in anyway glorifies hurting animals - and if you take that further to harming and killing people then all of a sudden you are into the realms of the banning and censoring films under the same ludicrous regimes that permeated the Video Nasties frenzy in the 80's in the UK.
The answer, in my opinion, is to release the films, in their entirety and set about protesting the use of animals in films and seek to bring about films made in more humane ways. It's the hardest route, but the banning of the films does nothing to prevent the production of the films and save any animals, so the easy route of banning and censoring should be avoided. Feel disgusted by the film then boycott it.
I wanted to add that I do appreciate when a DVD, Cannibal Holocaust for example, gives the home viewer the option of watching the film without the animal cruelty. Some of the stuff in that movie is pretty strong. At least this way the film is available uncut for artistic integrity (whatever that means in the Deodato's case), but without the unnecessary cruelty if the viewer so chooses..
Touchy subject, but I'm from Austin, TX and I cook BBQ twice a week. Nothing is better than steak, pork ribs and sausage smoked over mesquite or pecan wood....nothing! My dad is an avid deer hunter, so you already know my stance. I don't agree with unnecessary animal cruelty but I'm not gonna be all pissed about it and ban a movie. If you eat it than its ok. Most animal rights activist care more about dogs than human beings. Kinda funny. Its not like animals are developing a cure for cancer or anything. I think the Asian film industry (which I love) does this to get a rise out of westerners. They know how pissed off it makes you guys, trust me. I do think they should edit them down or use cgi however.
It's pretty obvious to me that it should be left in, censoring it will stop people from seeing it, therefore people will not be able to be affected enough by the abuse to want to complain about it. Leave it in and have people disgusted, and perhaps they will then force the filmmakers to think of other methods...
Another way would to clearly label the movie as ANIMAL ABUSE or something to that effect... but plain old censorship (which one should always be suspicious about) is only going to help perpetuate the problem. This will make some people skip the movie in it's entirety which will hit the studios, filmmakers, distributors in the pocket, where it will guarantee a change...
I am against censorship in any form. Arbitrary boards or individuals determining what is acceptable for ME to see is not to be tolerated.
I am also against exporting / imposing cultural values on others (the basis for many of the terrorist manifestos).
That being said, I can't condone cruelty to animals, but it also comes down to what is culturally tolerable in the source country.
In Europe the excessive violence in North American films would garner an "R" rating, while prolific sex would get a "PG", whereas the opposite is true in North America.
Present films as they were intended by the director and let those who will not see them because they offend their PETA principles be respected.
It comes down to personal choice and responsibility. The choice to see or not see films, with questionable animal practices, should be respected.
Leave the scenes as they are. Just because the West got wise in the eighties (still seems a little belated to me) it doesn't mean it5 can interfere with the films of other nations. If something should be done, it should be pressure put upon other countries to change their practices.
I am not a vegetarian, but I abhor scenes of animal cruelty in movies, I just don't think it is necessary. However, once the deed is done and we have wonderful 20-20 hindsight, we should bemoan not condone past practice (warnings on labels/DVD's/liner notes/whatever) and urge other's to do the same.
I think many people (in the "west" at least) automatically assume that no animals were hurt in the production of all films. Personally I would say leave the scenes in but require a big warning at the start of the film and on the packaging of DVDS etc.. This would make people aware that the cruelty is real, and possibly cause some campaigns to boycott the film, change these practices etc...
I have been a vegan for more than 10 years, I don't feel this is a case of forcing beliefs on other cultures, as I believe many people (at least a sizeable minority) in those other cultures would agree if they were aware of these practices. Compassion is not a preserve of the "west". Sensoring achieves little, warnings arguably achieve more, well at least they actually make us aware of the situation.
As I said earlier, I am a vegetarian, so my views are slightly biased and probably pretty cranky and in-your-face.
However, I am a veg-head more or less for agricultural reasons. To deny the importance of meat consumption in our evolutionary history would be ignorant. What it all comes down to is choice. If you think that animal suffering is wrong, you have to decide how you're going to deal with that and how you're going to try and make that situation a more positive one. Some go vegan or vegetarian, some just buy locally from cruelty-free farms.
But like someone mentioned earlier, since we now have access to methods like CGI that could easily fake these stunts (shit, they CGI'd Wesley Snipes, why not for Lassie?), why would we bother spending so much time, money, and sometimes bloodshed on getting the real deal anyway? I think we are far enough now, technologically and ethically speaking, that we don't need to resort to such practices.
But then again, you must also ask yourself that if we can now avoid eating meat to get important nutrients, why eat them at all?
It's a tough question to answer. Especially when half the world sees any animal that's not their cat or dog as lower than a piece of dirt.
And I guess this may seem offensive to some but... we ARE talking about Asia here. During my travels there, I felt thet treated the family dogs better than they treated their women, so I don't think we'll get too far fighting against animal cruelty in films until females no longer need to send their head shots with their McDonalds job application.
The underlying issue here is that movies are supposed to be fiction. Set design and special effects are used at great lengths to create the illusion of reality, actually doing 'the act' is something else. When blood is shed for a movie scene, it is no longer an exercise in fantasy. It becomes reality, which is completely different. (see snuff films/porn)
IMHO, John Woo should be made as an example of poor judgment and poor film-making. His high profile in Asian cinema could be used to create better standards for Animal welfare, if he was convinced by his audience it was necessary. I've seen a fair amount of animal abuse in asian cinema and feel the majority of filmmakers don't understand the true discipline of film-making. They don't call it 'acting' for nothing. Pretend is the protocol of film and theater, it is universally understood and Asia should know better.
Two blazing guns to your career Mr. Woo. May your god not be a horse. boycott rather then censor.
I appreciate, love, and respect all animals and the environment. How
on earth can I appreciate, love and respect most human-beings for
what they have done to this planet and to their fellow man. Pollute,
crime of all kinds, deviation to all what is good and proper....I would
like to see all these humans who abuse animals in any way be
eradicated from this planet,as I have no mercy for these people at all.
To me these animal abusers are not worth living. Animals have done
so much for me to make my life happier and healthier. Humans who
love animals like I do, I love them as welll, and God Bless their kind
hearts and benevolent will to help them when they're in need.