Salon.com: “No animals were harmed” in the filming of 2011′s “Life of Pi,” but the tiger “damn near drowned.” That’s just one of a litany of abuses against Hollywood’s four-legged actors, according to a scathing exposé in the Hollywood Reporter.
THR obtained incriminating evidence from six anonymous AHA whistle-blowers. Their sources included this email from AHA monitor Gina Johnson concerning “King,” the tiger who starred in “Life of Pi”:
20 comments:
I just watched an news article about this on CBS. And this is extremely surprising to me. The most surprising to me was the screen shot of the email in the article. With as many people are in the area when the things are filming, I am surprised this is just coming out now. I think that there is a really conscious awareness of the animals in the film industry and a lot of agencies are protective of their rights. I am surprised there is not a representative for the animal rights agencies at every film shot when an animal is involved. I mean, a certain agency freaked out when Obama swatted a fly during an interview. Why aren't they present during more intensive and action packed filming?
How disappointing. I feel as if I've been betrayed by the AHA. Every time I would see one of the "No Animals Were Harmed In The Making Of THis Movie" captions at the end of a flick, I would leave assured that morality was upheld on set. Personally, I was under the impression that this caption was only placed if the crew had followed the strictest regulations and safety protocols. It is disheartening to find out that this caption can be 'awarded' to just about any movie in which the AHA representative doesn't want to upset the producer. Sad.
This article just made me flat out depressed, I fee like I have been lied to. I always would think that when they said no animals were harmed they meant it, to find it thats not the case is heart breaking. It seems like this is a subject that should have been taken a little bit more seriously. I think this is something that should not continue on, animals should have rights to be kept safe during filming, Its sad when you find out the animals you fell in love with in movies did not make it through filming safely.
One of the most upsetting things in this article to me was the part where they mentioned the Pirates of the Caribbean crew setting off explosions in the water with no safety precautions. That could have gone a lot worse than a few dead squid- that could have destroyed entire ecosystems. I know water is really dangerous to mess with, since anything released into the water, such as chemicals, can have effects for miles due to currents. That was something that shouldn't have just been monitored by the AHA- some kind of environmental group should have stepped in. I'm also really surprised that the AHA allowed a shark to be placed in a tiny pool- that in itself seems to be a form of abuse, even if we discount the fact that it died from it.
This goes beyond disappointing. This is disgusting. I saw the other article about the harm to animals in movies earlier this week and that was bad enough. I'm glad that the news is making a big deal out of this finally. I was always to impressed as a young child that they managed to do all the movies without hurting the animals, especially the ones that depicted animals dying, usually horses. Although it is true that it isn't in their contracts to keep the animals safe, it is the humane thing to do. This is why dog fighting is so bad. We can't harm animals for our entertainment and financial benefit. This is just wrong. I think I will look more closely at the caption at the end to see the wording. The movies that harm animals should be known.
This is awful. What really bothers me is that so much attention is placed on this disclaimer in the first place. I agree with Feldsberg I had always been given a feeling of relief by this caption, and left theaters without looking too deeply into the question. The question remains, how strictly this regulation can be enforced. The article explains that the Non-profit status of the AHA exempts them from requirements of transparency. It remains an issue that an organization of this nature would have to be a non-profit, there is no money in this type of protection, it seems that with the current system, the issues are built-in. It could improve things, if an element of the certification to train animals and choreograph their actions in films, was a code of ethics similar to that of an professional engineer.
I think this is extremely upsetting to read. Yes, the first thing that comes to mind when you see/hear "No animals were harmed throughout the making of this film" is that the dying horse is not really dying. But that doesn't give the crew the right to let animals be harmed when it doesn't have to do with death or when it is not being filmed. Being harmed is being harmed and animals are beings too. A lot of people think humans are superior to other animals and so the animals' well being isn't as much of a priority, which is totally wrong! When people have pets, they are a part of the family as much as any person! Why should we treat them any different from how we treat ourselves?
I am surprised that the AHA feels it needs to appease the film industry. It should go without saying that a regulatory entity should have enough discipline to distance itself from the people it is trying to control. I am curious what kind of training monitors go through and if the government has rules for the treatment of animals on set as it does for children. It seems that a lot of work needs to be done in this area but since the AHA is non-profit, it will take a lot more than the government making a few administrative changes.
This is just gross...but it goes to show how people can go on blindly assuming things they were told. It's sad that any of this should have occurred...and the fact that the agency that is responsible for watching this takes no responsibility for what happens to a certain extent. I can't imagine the AHA didn't know that people trusted the "No Animals Were Harmed", but if more people knew what kind of abuse these productions put animals through, the movies would have no audience and would fail catastrophically. I think the tiger incident was understandable...it sounds like an unforeseeable accident. But punching a dog; there's no possible way that was an accident!
This is terribly sad. It's our job to protect the animals in film. Things like this should not be happening. I am terribly disappointed in the AHA. stepping up to protect an animal is not trouble making, its their duty and they should do their job to the utmost. Also they kept mentioning how the no animals were harmed in the making of this film related only to the on screen time. I have never believed that nor do I think that is where most peoples minds go. A phrase like that is more of a promise that the film did everyone to could both on and off camera to keep the animals safe. I'm not saying accidents don't happen, but the animals safety should be at the forefront of their minds.
I'm in no way an animal activist, but this is unacceptable. I find it astonishing that the AHA would let things like this slip. I also find it kind of surprising that the government hasn't found a way to make animal protection a necessary thing on sets and instead its a volunteer organization that is controlling it all.
This article is an atrocity, a prime example of the importance of investigation and not taking things at face value. There are many claims such as “no animals were harmed in the making of this movie” or “based on a true story” that seem to have little to no value, or as this article points out, lack a sense of scope. Audiences assume animals are cared for at all times, when in fact, it only means onscreen, if that. While I am not in any way advocating for the mistreatment of animals, the lack of scope is missing in this article as well. The article missed mentioning how frequently animals are used in movies. For instance, say there were 10 instances of animal neglect in films shot in 2012. This itself is an atrocity, however if there were 200 films in which animals were used the problem gains a sense of perspective. Likewise, the AHA began as a level of protection for animals when mistreatment was common. While this article certainly intones the problem as still prevalent, awareness has been raised. Just like actors, there will be instances in which injuries and mistakes are incurred. Producers are responsible for taking preventative measures, as well as appropriate post-care. While the cover up suggests neglect, a greater sense of scope would really empower this article.
Years ago Disney made a documentary about lemmings,which are these cute little Arctic rodents. In the documentary, the whole pack of lemmings committed a group suicide by jumping in water and drowning. Later on, it was found out that the filmmakers faked that scene and drowned all of the lemmings themselves. I though that this sort of animal abuse was no longer a possibility thanks to the AHA, but after reading the article that now seems like BS. I was under the impression that all animals had monitors on set to ensure that their safety and their rights as living creatures were protected, but instead there's just an AHA monitor who turns a blind eye to the abuses on the set. I have no idea why the AHA doesn't enforce its rules more, because it's definitely in a position where studios want to have the AHA message on their films. Also, the more lax the AHA is with their disclaimer, the less value it actually has. The AHA needs to enforce stricter policies to help protect animals and they need to realize that they are there for the animals not the studio.
While I do agree that in filming animals should be treated with respect and be protected on set, I also think it is unreasonable that the AHA should be held accountable for accidents on set. This does not mean that they should not be watchful but animals have their own brains, instincts, and reactions that humans cannot always predict. For example, who knew that King (the tiger star for The Life of Pi) would get lost swimming to the side of the tank? Had he not been doing it for a bit already? Furthermore, it seems as if supervisors and personnel were there to help King. Ultimately, it is unreasonable of audiences to think that the animals were completely in safe measures the whole entire time.
This pisses me off so much. I think it's a shame that people don't care enough about the wildlife around us and then go ahead and practically abuse them and their existence for the sake of entertainment. It's bullshit and quite frankly I don't think it's right to try and play it off as if nothing happened. It happened under your watch and trying to cover it up makes you scum. I hope that in the future I never have to work with people who don't respect animals as much as they respect themselves.
This is just shocking. I can't believe the AHA turns a blind eye to what they are there to prevent! What is the point of the AHA then? And of course the few monitors that actually try to care are considered trouble makers! Now, I do agree with Carolyn in saying that the AHA cannot be held responsible for everything, like King getting lost while trying to swim. But other instances, like placing a shark in a kiddie pool, come on people, isn't that common sense to know that's a bad idea?!?!???? I hope this media coverage sparks change, even if it is slow change.
This is absolutely shocking and disturbing. I cannot believe that this many injuries occurred on all of thee movies that received this stamp of approval. In movies that involve animals i never ever would've expected any animals to be both hurt and neglected. For some reason i just assumed that animals were of highest priority. Especially with PETA being all up in everyones business now days. The Hobbit animals really shocked me. AS well as the 8 below movie, how does a dog get repeatedly punched with out anyone knowing or caring? I completely agree with David in feeling betrayed by AHA. They seriously need to get their priorities straight and need some new management or something.
I must admit that I always felt happy seeing the little blurb about no animals being harmed and I did believe it, however this now makes me have a completely different reaction. Also, I am going to assume that since this article is on the blog that it is a reputable source. I would love to hear from the producers of these films as well as the animal rangers who were on set with them. Why were these things allowed to occur? That email that the guy sent was most upsetting because if it was a human actor certain things would not be allowed. In this day and age with such technological advancements, we have no excuses for needing to use animals in dangerous situations.
I am a glass half full kind of person so lets take it at face value. The email in the article cite King almost drowning, well it really does not seem like that meant to hurt him. Personally just do not know how I feel about this. We want to see animals in films, so animals are going to get hurt, but the degree of injury is what is up for debate. Humans get injured in movies and Yes, HUMANS CHOOSE to get injured I am aware of that. King did not choose to be in the movie and did not choose to swim around so where do you draw the line. AHA needs to speak up more, maybe?
It's surprising and upsetting to hear that we cannot necessarily trust movie's claims that "no animals were harmed." It makes me wonder if there's a flaw in the AHA's assessments or guidelines or if directors (or whomever) are blatantly ignoring the guidelines. I took a look at the AHA website. They seem like a very trustworthy, legit organization. I'd be surprised to hear they were being lenient or payed off by big movies. here's the link: http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/programs/no-animals-were-harmed/
Post a Comment