I have never seen as many dead animals on screen as I have in the past two weeks. From grasshoppers roasted over an open flame in to kangaroos mercilessly slaughtered in the night, I have been witness to a macabre cinematic menagerie of dead and dying fauna.

The Sydney Film Festival ended on the weekend, over for another year. And while there may not have been a programming strand dedicated to films with dead animals in them, the sheer number of those that did will remain with me as one of the most striking and unexpected things about those twelve days.

Obviously, it is the sort of observation that can only be made when one has attended a lot of films at the festival, an observation supported, as it is, by sheer weight of numbers. When more than one third of over forty-five features contains either a dead or dying animal, one begins to take notice of the trend.

In my case, I kept a death toll. A festival for the vegetarians it wasn’t.

There was the kitten that presumably died off-screen after the maid threw it over the garden wall in The Maid, and the carcass of some unnamed beast hanging from a meathook in a room of the Lourve in Tsai Ming-liang’s Face. There was the roasted cow’s head in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, a kind of bovine momento mori, and the duck that has its head chopped off onscreen in Catherine Breillat’s Bluebeard.

In David Caesar’s Prime Mover, there was the sheep that was hit first by a braking semi-trailer, and then again by a wheeljack-wielding William McInnes. In Louise-Michel, there was the dead pigeon that the lead character wanted to eat, and then later the rabbit that she did, raw. In Treeless Mountain, the two sisters captured, skewered and roasted countless grasshoppers, selling the insects for ten cents a pop, and in a similar vein, in the Peruvian documentary Oblivion, the street vendor made his living by killing frogs, boiling them in water, and then putting their flesh into a blender to make a smoothie he said would aid one’s memory. (In the interest of freshness, he killed the frogs on site. In the interest of verisimilitude, he also did so onscreen.)

Then there were the horses killed in battle in John Woo’s Red Cliff and the one stabbed in the neck by Benicio Del Toro in Che. There was Noé‘s overfed cat in Claire Denis’s 35 Shots, found on the floor of his apartment and, with very little fanfare, dumped in a garbage bag with a handful of pet toys, and the butterfly Guy Pearce left to die under a glass in Rowan Woods’s Winged Creatures. In the short film We Who Stayed Behind, there was the dead robin, which the lead character, Adam, carried around with him for a bit, before realising the futility of doing so and throwing it away. And there were all the dead kangaroos: the one hit by a car in Beautiful Kate and, more strikingly, those run down and shot at point-blank range in the remastered version of Wake in Fright. Peter Whittle even wrestled one, getting it in a headlock and slitting its throat.

And all this from a festival with a puppy on its program.

Of course, filmmakers have had always had a bit of a fascination with dead and dying animals, a fascination that has been there since the very beginning of cinema. In 1903, Thomas Edison shot and released his famous Electrocuting an Elephant, a one-shot film in which an elephant named Topsy had 6600 volts run through her at Luna Park Zoo on Coney Island. (Topsy, it should be noted, had killed three people in as many years, and arguably had it coming to her.) Georges Franju’s 1949 documentary, Le sang des bêtes (Blood of the beasts), contrasts the bucolic outer suburbs of post-war Paris with the bloody operations of a nearby slaughterhouse, and the film remains difficult to watch even today.

(Warning: Some may find this Topsy the Elephant clip disturbing.)

Perhaps cinema’s most famous animal corpses are those of the rabbits and pheasants in Renoir’s La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game), blown away, as they are, with unthinking cold-bloodedness by a hunting party of bourgeois twits. These butchered bunnies and birdies have become increasingly famous over time as an enduring symbol of man’s capacity for systematic brutality. That the film was first released (and then banned) only two or three months before the Nazis marched into Poland in 1939 imbues the death of these animals – for they, too, actually died onscreen – with even greater resonance.

This fascination with shooting dead animals – no pun intended – is itself one of the central themes in Peter Greenaway’s A Zed & Two Noughts. Here, twin brothers, whose wives have both been killed in a car accident, become obsessed with making time-lapse films of various animals in various states of decay. The resultant footage of angelfish and swans and zebras decomposing, set to the music of Michael Nyman, takes on a strange, otherworldly beauty, as death sometimes does, especially on film.

But I’m collapsing a number of categories here. There is, after all, a difference between showing an animal being killed on screen and showing one that has already been killed. There is also a difference between representing death on screen and actually inflicting it, a difference between a slasher film and snuff. The ethical questions surrounding the treatment of animals on film – questions about what it means to actually kill an animal for a scene – are many and, perhaps surprisingly, not always clean-cut. The ox at the end of Apocalypse Now, hacked up with machetes to the sound of The Doors, was killed as part of a religious ritual, a ritual that would have taken place regardless of whether or not Francis Ford Coppola had been there to shoot it. The horse in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev, on the other hand, was purchased from a slaughterhouse and returned there once its scene had was in the can, but not before it was shot, pushed down a staircase, and filmed bleeding to death. Both Coppola’s ox and Tarkovsky’‘s horse were going to die anyway. But it is arguable that only Coppola walked away without literal or figurative blood on his hands.

Not that all of the festival films mentioned above contained scenes of actual slaughter, of course. The duck in Bluebeard actually did have its head cut off and the kangaroos in Wake in Fright actually were slaughtered (as part of a routine cull, the credits inform us). And the frogs in Oblivion actually were, well, thrown into a blender and consumed as a thickshake. But most of the animal deaths in these films were either implied or merely represented. Which leads to a much more fundamental question. Forget whether or not an animal has actually been killed onscreen. Why are there so many representations of dead animals to begin with?

If the current bumper crop of corpses can be taken to mean anything at all, it is arguably that the metaphorical value of the dead animal in cinema remains essentially unchanged. When a little girl watches the life seep out of a headless duck, or when a lovesick young man finds his overweight cat dead on the floor, these deaths clearly mean more than they may at first appear to, carrying their fair share of narrative and thematic weight. Like Renoir’s rabbits or Franju’s bêtes, or the donkey dying in a field of sheep at the end of Bresson’s Au hasard Balthazar, these dead animals, too, remain evocative metaphors. Whether or not this is an excuse for killing an animal on screen is another matter.

One can only hope that the pug on the program managed to get out alive.

Most commented

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • MM says:

      01:06pm | 17/06/09

      nice article: could be deemed as hypocritical since as a vegetarian i have operated on a pig’s corpse in one of my own films… regardless of statement it’s important to ask the question like anything else included in a film/story eg. nudity, sex scenes, car chases..—is it really necessary? sometimes it is. sometimes not.

      but yes there were some distinctly identifiable common threads in the festival content this year. one of them being animal slaughter. i saw both bluebeard and face & duly noted the languid nature/glamorization of the camera on beastial torture. perhaps it’s to replace smoking…

      and who’s to say that that pug puppy wasn’t being sliced up on closing night and turned into canine pancetta for the delightful canapés?

    • Katrina Fox says:

      01:27pm | 17/06/09

      Good to see someone questioning the abuse of animals in film. And let’s be honest, that’s what it is. The torture and killing of sentient beings for human consumption (food, clothing) is bad enough and wholly unnecessary, but to do it for ‘entertainment’ or ‘art’ takes humanity’s cruelty to yet another level. As for the argument about whether an animal was going to die anyway, hey then why not apply the same rules to humans, if it’s so ethical. As I wrote in a recent op ed in the Sydney Morning Herald, the links between animal abuse and other forms of social oppression are well documented.

      I didn’t attend the SFF and after reading this piece, I’m glad.

    • Matt Riviera says:

      03:04pm | 17/06/09

      Animals are killed by humans everyday. It’s not surprising that some of it should show up on screen. I think it has very little to do with either cruelty or entertainment, and a lot to do with storytelling and reflecting reality - which is what cinema does.

      There’s also the killing of a rabbit in Last Ride, which is given great metaphorical depth and which is discussed in the comments of <a href=“http://www.mattriviera.net/2009/05/end-of-certainty-last-ride.html”>this review<a>.

    • David Ramli says:

      04:02pm | 17/06/09

      I agree somewhat with Matt Riviera’s comments. If some cinema has the role of reproducing life on screen then it makes sense to see a fair amount aninal death.

      But I occasionally feel that the violence reaches sadistic levels. Animals do feel pain, so to needlessly torture them in life is nasty. In my opinion, doing so for the sake of ‘art’ is simply unecessary and cruel. One can make the argument that having a character perform the act provides a confronting insight, but it’s a weak story-teller that must resort to such base methods.

      As a side note I disagree with Katrina Fox and feel that eating meat is a natural and normal practice - but I do refuse to eat produce that has been ill-treated in the slaughter.

    • Brian Darr says:

      04:32pm | 17/06/09

      I’m a (nearly) lifelong vegetarian, and though I more often than not find filmmakers’ decisions to show real animal deaths on screen to be a cliched shock tactic (and in fact, found Breillat’s employment of the device in Bluebeard, a film I otherwise loved, to reek of this), I’m not opposed to it on principle.  It really depends on how it fits into the film (and probably my mood at the time as well).  Several characters in Charles Burnett films, for example, memorably do away with other species, and I wouldn’t wish a frame to have been altered.

      I suppose that in the future (perhaps not so far-off) this kind of thing will be handled with digital wizardry.  The animal wranglers may soon be standing in line behind the stunt professionals in the unemployment line, if they’re not already.  But the animals won’t miss the work.

    • Dr. Lulz says:

      05:28pm | 17/06/09

      Play him off, keyboard cat.

    • Kunal Mirchandani says:

      05:35pm | 17/06/09

      Bird #1: Born on a dreary September morning, slaved my life away foraging for worms, suddenly drop dead old and exhausted on a lonely country highway, after which my rotting carcass gets mercilessly run over by the wheel of an oversized cargo truck.

      Bird #2: Born on the aforementioned morning, drift meaninglessly through life in pursuit of slimy little wrigglers, captured by film production crew, shot dead onscreen for Jean Renoir’s Rules of the Game, death witnessed by millions of cinephiles around the world, immortalised for eternity as a symbol of the capriciousness and self-indulgence of the French upper class.

      Maybe I wouldn’t mind being Bird #2. Hope this doesn’t, uhm, ruffle a few feathers.

    • Katrina Fox says:

      07:03pm | 17/06/09

      There is nothing ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ about ingesting rotting corpses. Bad for health, bad for animals, devastating to the environment. And if cinema reflects life and we should ‘expect’ to see ‘animal death’ then by the same token we should surely start killing off humans on screen too.
      An evolved culture should challenge and prevent the murder of sentient creatures (on screen or off), not accept or glorify it.

    • RichardsSusana35 says:

      04:14pm | 14/07/10

      The loan suppose to be essential for people, which are willing to ground their career. In fact, this is easy to receive a small business loan.

    • CookIvy says:

      02:44pm | 11/08/11

      Thare’s no other way to have good grade than to compose the free essays and this is, as well, real to order the dance essay paper at the custom essay papers writing service.

    • YvetteKnight says:

      09:30am | 13/08/11

      The good people can learn your thought close to this post and just order the thesis project at the thesis service.

    • Will says:

      04:09am | 01/05/12

      As a Film maker I can honestly say animal cruelty has no place in film or entertainment. Its all about intent. If your intent was to kill it and then try and cover it by saying ” we were gonna eat it” thats totally wrong. If you are gonna use the excuse that it was gonna die anyway, again you all know thats no excuse to kill a living thing to get your shot.Animals are not there for your morbid entertainment Any film maker that does that is simply not worth being recognised as a film maker. Artistic my ass, its cruelty plain and simple, why people continue to do it I just dont know.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

RT @PSyvret: As if anyone needs reminding of the bigoted pond-scum out there, this arrived in my in-box this morning: http://t.co/Lfu5ntmq

Daniel Piotrowski

@christoforpaine hope youre OK.. and the bali trip is still on!

Paul Colgan

RT @BusInsiderAU: WATCH: Will Smith Does A Fresh Prince Rap Reprise On British TV - http://t.co/Filsoi00AT

Paul Colgan

ping @TheStalwart - Ireland looking at phasing out Apple's tax arrangements http://t.co/fZESvMZJsW

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter