The Criterion Collection

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

So can I assume then that you'll be getting rid of those copies of Apocalypse Now and The Wild Bunch that you have in your collection?

Never seen The Wild Bunch, it’s still shrinkwapped. If there’s deliberate animal cruelty in it, thanks for the tip - I won’t bother watching it and into the bin it goes.

[The Great Owl]

The documentary, Sans Soleil, which is available on Blu-ray in the Collection, features a scene with a rather unlucky giraffe.

In an overall sense, though, it's still a remarkable film.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Never seen The Wild Bunch, it’s still shrinkwapped. If there’s deliberate animal cruelty in it, thanks for the tip - I won’t bother watching it and into the bin it goes.

Along with your copy of Apocalypse Now?

[thebratpackwrangler]

My picks for the B&N 50% off sale are

Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me
Mulholland Dr
Black Girl
Y Tu Mama También
The Virgin Suicides
Multiple Maniacs
Female Trouble
& maybe I'll finally grab Blue Is The Warmest Color for the $12.50 price tag

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Along with your copy of Apocalypse Now?

Sure, I think that’s still shrinkwrapped too. Let me dig them both out. Considering you’re some kind of savant that knows the content of films before you view them, it’s the least I can do.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Sure, I think that’s still shrinkwrapped too. Let me dig them both out. Considering you’re some kind of savant that knows the content of films before you view them, it’s the least I can do.

this one, too.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Sure, I think that’s still shrinkwrapped too. Let me dig them both out. Considering you’re some kind of savant that knows the content of films before you view them, it’s the least I can do.

More like if I was the type of person who was so sensitive to content such as animals being harmed that I refuse to watch any film containing such material, I wouldn't be blind-buying movies without doing a bit of research first.

Of course, I could just start messing with you and pick out dozens of titles from your collection saying they contain animal abuse, just to get you to bin them.

[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.

[javy]

Look it, I'm against animal cruelty. But you know what? The depiction of the horse in Andrei Rublev is completely different than some sicko getting off on torturing animals. I mean really.

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

The buffalo scene in Apocalypse Now was a documentation of a real event. It wasn't killed for the film. They shot a real ritual slaughter and incorporated it into the film.

So you're all set with animal sacrifice then.

[javy]

So what's everyone's stance on underage nudity in films? Films such as the beautiful oddities known as Valerie and Her Week of Wonders and Black Moon.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by SonnybytheSea

I'm hoping to see these films as future CC releases
Frank Perry's Last Summer (1969)
Richard Brooks's Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977)
Jeunet & Caro's Delicatessen (1991)
Jeunet & Caro's The City of Lost Children (1995)
Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Amélie (2001)
Jean-Pierre Jeunet's A Very Long Engagement (2004)

Several of Frank Perry's films are missing in action. I wouldn't mind if Criterion added Diary of a Mad Housewife (1970) and Play It As It Lays (1972) to their release schedule. Neither film has ever been released on home video, officially, that I know of, unless you count betamax.

[mja345]

Being offended to the point of not watching something is a difficult stand to take IMO. You always open yourself up to hypocrisy. I say watch everything you're interested in, and if something you actually view truly bothers you, then don't watch it again. Swearing something off before you watch it is never wise IMO because things often change once you actually view something. The viewing experience of a truly great film or any work of art is a powerful drug.

[Kyle15]

If you don't like something in a movie, don't watch it. If you want to be hoity toity and show how informed and empathetic you are to bad thing in movie, tell about it on a forum. We don't have to agree, but we might and if we do or do not, ok.

Originally Posted by mja345

Being offended to the point of not watching something is a difficult stand to take IMO. You always open yourself up to hypocrisy. I say watch everything you're interested in, and if something you actually view truly bothers you, then don't watch it again. Swearing something off before you watch it is never wise IMO because things often change once you actually view something. The viewing experience of a truly great film or any work of art is a powerful drug.

This tho. I personally slightly avert my eyes if something specific bothers me enough which isn't often, though real animal cruelty would be an example. Sometimes there's just deeply disturbing movies out there and they're some of the best ever made. If you don't want to financially support a thing then don't buy it, find another means to view it.

[Knaldskalle]

I can totally understand people not liking animal killings in movies, but I honestly think it's a more complex issue than people seem to want to reduce it to.

There's the killing of animals that would've happened anyway (like in the documentary Les Sang Des Betes mentioned above). There's the killing of animals that were already going to be killed (as in Andrei Rublev, possibly Apocalypse Now). There's the killing of animals for the sake of a movie, bought and paid for (numerous movies). There's the killing of animals that never even makes it into the movie (Manderlay, allegedly) There's the accidental killing of animals in movies (many old Westerns)
and there's the deliberate torturing and killing of animals in movies (Cannibal Apocalypse, for instance).

These are all different circumstances and some people are okay with all of them, some are okay with some of them and some are not okay with any of them. I think that's completely reasonable no matter where you land on the spectrum.

The problem for me arises when we start telling other people how they should behave in a given situation due to some perceived lack of consistency. I think we all know that very few people are consistent on everything in their lives and I also think most of us are aware (at least to some degree) of where we aren't consistent.

I think this is a worthwhile debate, but I also think it's one of those emotional minefields where it's far too easy to resort to name calling and finger pointing and getting ruffled feathers.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

What about Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game. Roughly 64% of the world's rabbits were killed just for that movie.

I always have to follow that Renoir film up with Night of the Lepus, just to get things right again in my head.

I always wondered if any of those bunnies got hurt in Lepus. Have you ever seen Bluebeard (1972) with Richard Burton and Raquel Welch? That movie is BRUTAL !! The beginning is just a slaughterfest that goes on for way too long. I can handle a lot but that opening sequence is pretty hard to watch...

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

The buffalo scene in Apocalypse Now was a documentation of a real event. It wasn't killed for the film. They shot a real ritual slaughter and incorporated it into the film.

But man, that HAD to have hurt...

[gregmtl92]

Originally Posted by mja345

Being offended to the point of not watching something is a difficult stand to take IMO. You always open yourself up to hypocrisy. I say watch everything you're interested in, and if something you actually view truly bothers you, then don't watch it again. Swearing something off before you watch it is never wise IMO because things often change once you actually view something. The viewing experience of a truly great film or any work of art is a powerful drug.

Does that include snuff film etc..?

[mja345]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

Does that include snuff film etc..?

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.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

More like if I was the type of person who was so sensitive to content such as animals being harmed that I refuse to watch any film containing such material, I wouldn't be blind-buying movies without doing a bit of research first.

Of course, I could just start messing with you and pick out dozens of titles from your collection saying they contain animal abuse, just to get you to bin them.

But we wouldn't wish to think you capable of such frivolous malice -- that'd border on malevolent sociopathy, wouldn't it?

[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.