The Criterion Collection

[gregmtl92]

Originally Posted by mja345

It's really a question of what we can tolerate to consume great art. I'm not pretending I have any answers or have any definition of what I can consume. Is "Andrei Rublev" worth watching despite featuring a scene that some may find objectionable? I believe it is. I think you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. You have to judge if something has enough artistic merit to outweigh any objections you may have IMO.

I agree that Andrei Rublev is (probably, have not yet seen it) worth watching. I just don't understand why some people in this thread make a big deal out of some not wanting to watch certain films for a reason or another, animal abuse in this case but it could be anything that hits close to home. If someone told me they don't want to watch "Philadelphia" or "It's my Party" because they lost a relative to AIDS I wouldn't judge them. I think the same applies here, a lot of people myself included don't like to see animals hurt or killed, if they choose not to watch Andrei Rublev it's their choice.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

I agree that Andrei Rublev is (probably, have not yet seen it) worth watching. I just don't understand why some people in this thread make a big deal out of some not wanting to watch certain films for a reason or another, animal abuse in this case but it could be anything that hits close to home. If someone told me they don't want to watch "Philadelphia" or "It's my Party" because they lost a relative to AIDS I wouldn't judge them. I think the same applies here, a lot of people myself included don't like to see animals hurt or killed, if they choose not to watch Andrei Rublev it's their choice.

Sure, man, if people don't want to watch it, it's fine. But I'm more on the side of watch something, then judge it. But if people don't want to watch this film due to being bothered by animal cruelty on principle, then that's their choice.

[plateoshrimp]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

I agree that Andrei Rublev is (probably, have not yet seen it) worth watching. I just don't understand why some people in this thread make a big deal out of some not wanting to watch certain films for a reason or another, animal abuse in this case but it could be anything that hits close to home. If someone told me they don't want to watch "Philadelphia" or "It's my Party" because they lost a relative to AIDS I wouldn't judge them. I think the same applies here, a lot of people myself included don't like to see animals hurt or killed, if they choose not to watch Andrei Rublev it's their choice.

I agree. There's a big difference between "I prefer not to watch that" and "No one should be allowed to watch that because I prefer not to."

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Well, I've heard conflicting stories about this, but even with that being the case it still depicts an animal being killed, which to many is distressing regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. And for others it would put it in the same moral category as Andrei Rublev as the horse was going to be killed anyway.

I do think that there is a distinction -- the horse was going to be killed in a slaughterhouse, but presumably it wasn't going to be shot in the neck, kicked down the stairs, and then stabbed with a spear. I'm going by wikipedia for the details, so I am sorry if the details are a bit off, but I can certainly understand why people put this higher on a "cruelty to animals" scale than Apocalypse Now.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I'm totally sympatico with zero tolerance toward animal cruelty but this is not the place for such a discussion. Releasing a vintage film with cruelty in it does not automatically mean the home video company is endorsing such behavior, nor profiting from it. These things happen in life. Criterion is in the business of selling old movies and works of cinematic art. If there is an incident of cruetly in one of these old films, it's incidental and not the purpose of the film nor the video.

Let's leave it alone here, and fight the battle elsewhere, where it can be won.

I agree, lets change the subject. I wonder when Criterion is going to release Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) ?

[Martin_31]

Howard Hampton’s essay for One-Eyed Jacks is the worst one I have ever read for a Criterion release. What the f*** was it with all the metaphors. He needed to take a hint from Ron Swanson.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by plateoshrimp

I agree. There's a big difference between "I prefer not to watch that" and "No one should be allowed to watch that because I prefer not to."

Has anyone said that in this thread?

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by mja345

It's really a question of what we can tolerate to consume great art. I'm not pretending I have any answers or have any definition of what I can consume. Is "Andrei Rublev" worth watching despite featuring a scene that some may find objectionable? I believe it is. I think you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. You have to judge if something has enough artistic merit to outweigh any objections you may have IMO.

If I know ahead of time that a film features animal cruelty, I’ll just skip it. There’s enough great art out there that doesn’t to last my lifetime. Am I missing something life-changing by not watching Andrei Rublev and The Wild Bunch? Probably not.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by mja345

It's really a question of what we can tolerate to consume great art. I'm not pretending I have any answers or have any definition of what I can consume. Is "Andrei Rublev" worth watching despite featuring a scene that some may find objectionable? I believe it is. I think you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. You have to judge if something has enough artistic merit to outweigh any objections you may have IMO.

I have seen Rublev in 2 different cuts at least 3 times each and while I agree it's a film worth watching, the incident in question is not art nor was it necessary. It's so manipulative from a directional standpoint, for him to go out of his way for it, and from my point of view a better director could have delivered the same visceral effect without the bother of actual death. I still watch the film obviously, so I'm sort of on both sides of the fence, but I would be lying if I said this part of Rublev didn't effect my view of Tarkovsky as a whole. The same for some other directors whose films I love, where these types of things make me look at them differently as artists. It's a sort of "cinema verite" that they thought to be an auteurist technique. Sure it's effective but it's so beneath their talent. It is funny though that this discussion is happening again as a lot of people experience this film for the first time with retro outrage, which is stupid, and the idea of boycotting Criterion for archiving the film is laughable. I like that technology has advanced to the point where a filmmaker who wants to have animal violence in their film can achieve that in a financially feasible way via CGI that actually works.

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

Jean-Luc Godard's Weekend has a scene near the end where a pig is slaughtered. Needless to say, there are many purposeful animal slaughterings in Blood of the Beasts (Le sang des betes,) a supplement on the Eyes Without a Face Blu-ray. It is a documentary of a French slaughterhouse. Also, Dry Summer, which can be found on the Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project, No. 1, contains a scene where a dog is purposefully shot.

Blood of the Beasts makes me cringe every time I think about it. That's an extra I won't be revisiting.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I do think that there is a distinction -- the horse was going to be killed in a slaughterhouse, but presumably it wasn't going to be shot in the neck, kicked down the stairs, and then stabbed with a spear. I'm going by wikipedia for the details, so I am sorry if the details are a bit off, but I can certainly understand why people put this higher on a "cruelty to animals" scale than Apocalypse Now.

I’m not making a judgment call, I can understand both points of view.

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I agree, lets change the subject. I wonder when Criterion is going to release Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) ?

Oh you.

[theEXORCIST]

After learning how many Milo's and Otis's died during Milo and Otis the movie was never the same to me after that

[I KEEL YOU]

I always wondered if the mule they threw off the bridge in Patton was killed just for that.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I always wondered if the mule they threw off the bridge in Patton was killed just for that.

Take this with a grain of salt, etc..

In the film Patton points his gun at the animals and fires. Soldiers are then seen tossing the carcasses into a river. An extra in the film told reporters that the crew killed the animals with strychnine and had also clubbed a donkey to death and blown up a horse by tying dynamite to its belly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mule-log/

[Abdrewes]

I've been digging into the Olympics set and I've been shocked at how little basketball content there is. I think I've seen more archery content actually. In the films from '88 to 2012, the only instances I can recall are the two minutes the Dream team gets in Saura's 1992 doc, and about four or five minutes of USSR vs USA in Hand in Hand. The former is disappointingly choppy, but the latter has a minute's worth of awesome Arvydas Sabonis highlights (it was funny to hear they exaggerated his height, even if it was only an inch at 7'4").

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Blood of the Beasts makes me cringe every time I think about it. That's an extra I won't be revisiting.

I know it wasn't gratuitous and I'm a lot more forgiving of seeing an animal dying onscreen in an appropriate cultural context, but man, I had a hard time with the ox being hacked to death in Touki Bouki in particular.

[Gacivory]

Can I get more Aki Kaurismäki on Blu-Ray? Especially the early stuff!

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by javy

So you're all set with animal sacrifice then.

In the case of the ritual slaughter in Apocalypse Now and general human sustenance, yes. The buffalo slaughter was done for the sustenance of the tribe, and the fact that it was done ritualistically indicates a reverence toward the sacrifice. The death in that film had a legitimate real-life purpose and wasn't done just for the film. The same can't be said for the horse and cow scenes in Andre Rublev. They were unnecessary and appeared to be done purely for spectacle.

[Member-222782]

I wonder if The Element of Crime will ever be receiving an upgrade. I never finished watching my DVD copy but only because the film is so visually interesting I want to experience it in better quality. And, sadly, there's no other HD edition of the film anywhere in the world. How is this possible??

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

In the case of the ritual slaughter in Apocalypse Now and general human sustenance, yes. The buffalo slaughter was done for the sustenance of the tribe, and the fact that it was done ritualistically indicates a reverence toward the sacrifice. The death in that film had a legitimate real-life purpose and wasn't done just for the film. The same can't be said for the horse and cow scenes in Andre Rublev. They were unnecessary and appeared to be done purely for spectacle.

Have you forgotten the story behind the water buffalo in Apocalypse Now? Because how Coppola tells it was that they witnessed the ritual slaughter of the cow and asked them if they could do another one for the film which is what ended up in the movie, so yeah it was basically staged for the film.

I find it stupid that no matter what the fate of these stupid long deceased animals was set to be its only immoral once the camera is put behind it. "Doesnt matter if that horse was going to die the next day, they FILMED IT!"

Big deal, way worse happens for the consumption of meat than what happened to this horse and chances are it was sent back to the factory again afterwards to be harvested for whatever it was going to be used for originally. Even the makers of Cannibal Holocaust gave the turtle meat to the villagers after they shot that scene. As long as it wasnt just tossed to the side to rot I could care less if a film shows a real animal death on screen.
Its unpleasant to see but its life.