Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:32:23 CDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
PSYCPAT inquires:
"To the post that equated seeing an animal killed on screen with seeing
it shrinkwrapped in the supermarket: I have difficulty comparing killing
an animal for its meat with killing an animal for some goal of cinematic
verite. Could you clarify?"
I wasn't quite equating the two--yet you seem to be. I was trying to make the
point that in certain films (such as the ones I mentioned), the point is
brought home that survival has often required the death of animals for our
sustenance. The sacrifice of the pig in TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS is a
difficultexample, since the pig is important to the family but they've come to
the end
of all other resources. In other films, such killings are simply a fact of
rural life. Sometimes--as in Cisse's BRIGHTNESS--the killing is sacrificial.
I would suggest, as another post seems to say, that modern urban audiences often
find such scenes upsetting, yet think nothing of heading to Sizzler for a
sirloin or plucking some of Frank Perdue's best from the shelves. See
WALKABOUT(which I mentioned) where he crosscuts the aborigine's killing of an
animal
(kangaroo?) with shots of meat in a market.
I hope that clarifies--though the intent of your question wasn't quite clear
either!
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
|
|
|